3 ms·

The world is full of radioactivity, including the banana you eat and the partner you sleep next to. What matters is the amount, is it dangerous?

blululu 4y ago
I’m not sure if this is a helpful comment. Yeah the dose matters. Do you have any numbers on the contamination levels of this site? Groundwater/soil contamination is notoriously hard to measure and the variance can be much bigger than the average. Given this history of government obfuscation around this issue, would you even trust their numbers? The concern is based on risk which needs to factor in more than the latest government estimate.
- concordDance 4y ago
  It's a helpful comment if people reflexively go "there's radiation?! That's dangerous!", which they do in my experience. Reminders that things need quantification are often helpful to prevent people getting worked up over nothing or ignore important issues. Without knowledge of the numbers saying "There's radioactivity!" should just cause a shrug.
iancmceachern 4y ago
True, and the amount of radiation left in thr Rocky Flatts area is dangerous, simple fact.
- concordDance 4y ago
  I'm assuming you're assuming the linear no threshold model here otherwise this statement doesn't make sense. What do you mean by "dangerous"? Because having sex with your wife is dangerous in that it increases the risk of heart attack. Some dangers are negligible increases that are worth the risk. A 0.00001% increased risk of lung cancer is negligible compared to things like air pollution from living in a city.
  - iancmceachern 4y ago
    I'm looking at the laundry list here among many other places: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radioactive_contamination_from_the_Rocky_Flats_Plant https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radioactive_contamination_fr...
    - concordDance 4y ago
      That list is sadly lacking in quantification. Having read the article I am no wiser as to whether or not the risk is greater or lesser than a +0.001% risk of lung cancer.
code_duck 4y ago
Radioactive metals are heavy metals, and uranium for instance, even without the radioactivity, is dangerous in the same way as lead. It's definitely not something you want in your water.
- concordDance 4y ago
  Definitely. The question is how much heavy metal there is. There's already a fair bit in our water.
  - code_duck 4y ago
    They detected plutonium in the water supply of Santa Fe in the 70s and according to this article, as recently as 2006. The ideal quantity of plutonium in your water is zero. https://rense.com/general77/santa.htm https://rense.com/general77/santa.htm

blululu 4y ago

I’m not sure if this is a helpful comment. Yeah the dose matters. Do you have any numbers on the contamination levels of this site? Groundwater/soil contamination is notoriously hard to measure and the variance can be much bigger than the average. Given this history of government obfuscation around this issue, would you even trust their numbers? The concern is based on risk which needs to factor in more than the latest government estimate.

concordDance 4y ago
It's a helpful comment if people reflexively go "there's radiation?! That's dangerous!", which they do in my experience. Reminders that things need quantification are often helpful to prevent people getting worked up over nothing or ignore important issues. Without knowledge of the numbers saying "There's radioactivity!" should just cause a shrug.

iancmceachern 4y ago

True, and the amount of radiation left in thr Rocky Flatts area is dangerous, simple fact.

concordDance 4y ago
I'm assuming you're assuming the linear no threshold model here otherwise this statement doesn't make sense. What do you mean by "dangerous"? Because having sex with your wife is dangerous in that it increases the risk of heart attack. Some dangers are negligible increases that are worth the risk. A 0.00001% increased risk of lung cancer is negligible compared to things like air pollution from living in a city.
- iancmceachern 4y ago
  I'm looking at the laundry list here among many other places: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radioactive_contamination_from_the_Rocky_Flats_Plant https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radioactive_contamination_fr...
  - concordDance 4y ago
    That list is sadly lacking in quantification. Having read the article I am no wiser as to whether or not the risk is greater or lesser than a +0.001% risk of lung cancer.

code_duck 4y ago

Radioactive metals are heavy metals, and uranium for instance, even without the radioactivity, is dangerous in the same way as lead. It's definitely not something you want in your water.

concordDance 4y ago
Definitely. The question is how much heavy metal there is. There's already a fair bit in our water.
- code_duck 4y ago
  They detected plutonium in the water supply of Santa Fe in the 70s and according to this article, as recently as 2006. The ideal quantity of plutonium in your water is zero. https://rense.com/general77/santa.htm https://rense.com/general77/santa.htm