5 ms·

> In reality, a single transatlantic flight will expose you to more radiation than spending a year at the reprocessing site. More attempted misdirection. The p

> In reality, a single transatlantic flight will expose you to more radiation than spending a year at the reprocessing site. More attempted misdirection. The problem is the emissions into the atmosphere and ocean which is cumulative and spread over a much larger region, not the radiation on site. Much like coal: One La Hague running at full capacity for a coupleof decades is a relatively minor problem. A thousand of them running for a century using much more polluting feed stock is the issue. > Greenpeace had zero credibility on nuclear power. They think a million people died from Chernobyl. This is nothing more than propaganda. If it's not a problem then why not pay for third parties to put whatever sensors they please and run whatever tests they wish on the outlets, vents, and surrounding land rather than removing them and running a media suppression campaign? Proving Greenpeace wrong would make their job far easier. > You realize that naturally occurring uranium already contaminates many regions water supplies? But it's not the end of the world, it can be treated and filtered out: https://www.kqed.org/stateofhealth/120396/uranium-contaminat https://www.kqed.org/stateofhealth/120396/uranium-contaminat... U238 isn't americium or neptunium or plutonium, and natural contamination levels are far lower than what happens around those mines.

Manuel_D 4y ago
Radiation density is what matters. Radiation that escapes into a much larger volume rapidly becomes negligibly more radioactive than the average. If the surrounding areas are contaminated, it should be trivial to find this without access to the plant itself. Unless this is radiation is completely contained in the plant, and in that case it's not really contamination is it? They don't want Greenpeace sticking random sensors everywhere, because they'll detect negligible amounts of radioisotopes and insist it's contamination. They're free to walk around less than a mile away from the plant with Geiger counters in and whatever other equipment they want. If nearby areas were contaminated, then being prohibited from entering the plant itself would pose no issue to discovering that contamination. And you can't just walk onto a nuclear facility, them being prohibited is not unusual in the slightest. It's like claiming the fact that Im not free to expose Area 51 is proof that there's something nefarious hidden there: aliens, genetically engineer Nekos, take your pick.
- Schroedingersat 4y ago
  The sensors removed were outside the facility. The suppression campaign was about Iodine in the soil. It is trivial to provide hard evidence about what the levels of radioactive Iodine, Krypton, Caesium, etc. are. Suppressing it just makes you look guilty. Their behavior is exactly like in Kakadu where the response is "you can't prove people don't smoke and drink more here", or what the tobacco and fossil fuel industries have done for decades.
  - Manuel_D 4y ago
    If evidence is so trivial to provide, then why hasn't it been found? The only readings these activists have taken show average levels of radioisotopes that they turn around and claim are contamination. Why aren't France's neighbors complaining about these spills? Surely neighboring countries would object to their waters being polluted, and they have the resources to detect it. Or does this conspiracy spread beyond France, an international conspiracy of countries colluding to cover up waste? If I stick a voltmeter on a power distribution center, and the plant workers remove it is it evidence of some sort of nefarious activity? No, because unknown devices being placed in critical infrastructure should be removed and examined. Greenpeace France have stopped trying to argue waste is being spilled. If nothing else I have to laud your commitment to this theory that waste is being released.
    - Schroedingersat 4y ago
      > If evidence is so trivial to provide, then why hasn't it been found? Yeah you're right, conclusive evidence that it's safe and isn't producing an amount of radiation that would become dangerous over decades if it were to expand is trivial to provide. Why hasn't it been found?
      - Manuel_D 4y ago
        I know right? It has been in operation for more than half a century. If there was a noticeable buildup of radioisotopes in the areas we'd be seeing a growing concentration in that areas. We have incredibly precise ways to measure radiation, sensitive to deviations if a fraction of a percent above average. The blueish area on this chart [1] is a trillionth (10^-12) above the initial radiation value. We can detect the radiation this far away not because it's dangerous, but because our instruments are so sensitive. If there was contamination then countries all across Europe would be detecting along their waters. But they aren't. 1. https://www.fisheries.noaa.gov/west-coast/science-data/fukushima-radiation-us-west-coast-tuna https://www.fisheries.noaa.gov/west-coast/science-data/fukus...

Manuel_D 4y ago

Radiation density is what matters. Radiation that escapes into a much larger volume rapidly becomes negligibly more radioactive than the average. If the surrounding areas are contaminated, it should be trivial to find this without access to the plant itself. Unless this is radiation is completely contained in the plant, and in that case it's not really contamination is it? They don't want Greenpeace sticking random sensors everywhere, because they'll detect negligible amounts of radioisotopes and insist it's contamination. They're free to walk around less than a mile away from the plant with Geiger counters in and whatever other equipment they want. If nearby areas were contaminated, then being prohibited from entering the plant itself would pose no issue to discovering that contamination. And you can't just walk onto a nuclear facility, them being prohibited is not unusual in the slightest. It's like claiming the fact that Im not free to expose Area 51 is proof that there's something nefarious hidden there: aliens, genetically engineer Nekos, take your pick.

Schroedingersat 4y ago
The sensors removed were outside the facility. The suppression campaign was about Iodine in the soil. It is trivial to provide hard evidence about what the levels of radioactive Iodine, Krypton, Caesium, etc. are. Suppressing it just makes you look guilty. Their behavior is exactly like in Kakadu where the response is "you can't prove people don't smoke and drink more here", or what the tobacco and fossil fuel industries have done for decades.
- Manuel_D 4y ago
  If evidence is so trivial to provide, then why hasn't it been found? The only readings these activists have taken show average levels of radioisotopes that they turn around and claim are contamination. Why aren't France's neighbors complaining about these spills? Surely neighboring countries would object to their waters being polluted, and they have the resources to detect it. Or does this conspiracy spread beyond France, an international conspiracy of countries colluding to cover up waste? If I stick a voltmeter on a power distribution center, and the plant workers remove it is it evidence of some sort of nefarious activity? No, because unknown devices being placed in critical infrastructure should be removed and examined. Greenpeace France have stopped trying to argue waste is being spilled. If nothing else I have to laud your commitment to this theory that waste is being released.
  - Schroedingersat 4y ago
    > If evidence is so trivial to provide, then why hasn't it been found? Yeah you're right, conclusive evidence that it's safe and isn't producing an amount of radiation that would become dangerous over decades if it were to expand is trivial to provide. Why hasn't it been found?
    - Manuel_D 4y ago
      I know right? It has been in operation for more than half a century. If there was a noticeable buildup of radioisotopes in the areas we'd be seeing a growing concentration in that areas. We have incredibly precise ways to measure radiation, sensitive to deviations if a fraction of a percent above average. The blueish area on this chart [1] is a trillionth (10^-12) above the initial radiation value. We can detect the radiation this far away not because it's dangerous, but because our instruments are so sensitive. If there was contamination then countries all across Europe would be detecting along their waters. But they aren't. 1. https://www.fisheries.noaa.gov/west-coast/science-data/fukushima-radiation-us-west-coast-tuna https://www.fisheries.noaa.gov/west-coast/science-data/fukus...