3 ms·

Sure, I was too impulsive myself, but it's really difficult to read dismissive comments when people all around you lose 10+ years of life expectancy to this "no

Sure, I was too impulsive myself, but it's really difficult to read dismissive comments when people all around you lose 10+ years of life expectancy to this "non-problem" just so that some guy in France can have his nuclear energy for cheap. I think this is the study; I read it as a proper full-length thesis, but it also seems to have been condensed into a short paper: https://sci-hub.se/https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S1470160X17303643 https://sci-hub.se/https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/art... I'll look around a bit more for the original.

roenxi 2y ago
Are there any mines involved in this study? There don't seem to be any mines involved here. I'm not even sure that most of the damage is being done by the Uranium processing, we seem to be looking at a heavy industrial district. I can't figure out where their colour scale comes from but it seems the high Uranium concentrations are quite localised to near the Uranium processing plant and the area is a witches brew of pollutants from all sorts of horrible industrial activities. I wouldn't choose to live there, I give you that. Not convinced it is relevant to nuclear power debate though. The studiers seem to be drawing attention to the toxicity of the lead-zinc plant. This goes to the core of my complaint against the anti-nuclear people. I think ignoring the Ag, As, Ba. Be, Co, Cr, Sb & Zn - and all the other elements in the study - and myopically focusing on the U is really misunderstanding what an industrial district does. They are unhealthy places.