5 ms·

It's likely more than that. Chernobyl had a great impact on people's idea of nuclear. Also its damage, when occurring, is done in a spectacular way by something

by scheeko 13y ago

It's likely more than that. Chernobyl had a great impact on people's idea of nuclear. Also its damage, when occurring, is done in a spectacular way by something invisible. Radiation poisoning is dramatic, horrific and you can't see, smell or feel. That scares the living hell out of most people and the fact that is statistically unlikely becomes irrelevant as soon as it becomes an irrational fear. There are things that cause more deaths by cancer, slowly and steadily, that don't (or didn't) scare anyone - tobacco was an example. Junk food may be another.

justatdotin 13y ago
I think another parameter is the intergenerational teratogenic impacts: Radiation fades your genes.
- jimworm 13y ago
  I think another parameter is the long-lasting data corruption in the network. Unclean power fades the processor channel on your hard drive. EDIT: this is a sarcastic response to a comment that backs up an assertion with nonsense.
  - justatdotin 13y ago
    unlike some of the other risks to life listed, ionizing radiation can cause genetic damage. An impact that is passed on to future generations. I propose that's a factor for the special place the nuclear industry has in so many hearts. how's that nonsense?
    - jimworm 13y ago
      That is a theoretical possibility, and a highly unlikely and unobserved possibility at that. Real life mutations aren't like in children's cartoons. Most of the genetic material in a multicellular organism do not belong to germ cells, and most mutations caused by ionizing radiation either cause death of the cell or no effect at all, especially in eukaryotic chromosomes. Cancer, highly unlikely itself, is many orders of magnitude more likely than any inheritable effect. Studies of the Chernobyl disaster have not found evidence of teratogenic effects in humans [1], and neither have studies of survivors of the Hiroshima and Nagasaki bombings [2]. The malevolent-sounding yet meaningless phrase "fades your genes" is nothing short of nonsense, especially in reference to inheritable teratogenic effects. The number of special places in hearts can do nothing to alter that judgement. [1] http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/10440782 http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/10440782 [2] http://www.rerf.jp/radefx/genetics_e/birthdef.html http://www.rerf.jp/radefx/genetics_e/birthdef.html
- mpyne 13y ago
  Good thing no life forms are exposed to radiation such as UV, cosmic rays, or naturally-occuring radioactive elements such as Carbon-14, Potassium-40, or Uranium then, we'd be screwed after only a few generations! Oh, wait...
  - peterpathname 13y ago
    what's your point? people do get old and sick. the fact that radiation exists naturally in the environment doesn't mean its good for you, and doesnt mean that more won't pose an increased health hazard
    - mpyne 13y ago
      On the other hand, it does mean that we were evolved to at least be able to procreate in the presence of a constant radiation flux. There's such a wide gulf in possible levels of radiation exposure that radiation health physicists are to this very day still unsure whether constant exposure to low levels of radiation is actually harmful at all. They haven't even been able to rule out that it's not beneficial. But either way, if you're worried about exposure to radiation you should be more worried about coal plants than nuclear plants; coal plants emit so much radioactivity to the environment that their exhaust would generate more power in a nuke plant, if it could be harvested properly.
      - justatdotin 13y ago
        yes we can procreate in the presence of some radiation: could you set a lower compliance bar for any pollutant? beneficial impacts are pretty much fringe science. FWIW, there has been experimental demonstration of minimal ionizing radiation causing mutation in a single cell. and most regulatory standards around the world continue to reduce 'acceptable limits'. I think the most recent example is the reduction in exposure to radon exposure that has been recognised in a number of national standards. I read that as showing that people who understand the science more than myself are still, decades later, finding more cause for caution.
        13y ago
philjohn 13y ago
Add sex to the list - HPV is sexually transmitted and is thought to cause a scary percentage of certain cancers.

by scheeko 13y ago

justatdotin 13y ago

I think another parameter is the intergenerational teratogenic impacts: Radiation fades your genes.

jimworm 13y ago
I think another parameter is the long-lasting data corruption in the network. Unclean power fades the processor channel on your hard drive. EDIT: this is a sarcastic response to a comment that backs up an assertion with nonsense.
- justatdotin 13y ago
  unlike some of the other risks to life listed, ionizing radiation can cause genetic damage. An impact that is passed on to future generations. I propose that's a factor for the special place the nuclear industry has in so many hearts. how's that nonsense?
  - jimworm 13y ago
    That is a theoretical possibility, and a highly unlikely and unobserved possibility at that. Real life mutations aren't like in children's cartoons. Most of the genetic material in a multicellular organism do not belong to germ cells, and most mutations caused by ionizing radiation either cause death of the cell or no effect at all, especially in eukaryotic chromosomes. Cancer, highly unlikely itself, is many orders of magnitude more likely than any inheritable effect. Studies of the Chernobyl disaster have not found evidence of teratogenic effects in humans [1], and neither have studies of survivors of the Hiroshima and Nagasaki bombings [2]. The malevolent-sounding yet meaningless phrase "fades your genes" is nothing short of nonsense, especially in reference to inheritable teratogenic effects. The number of special places in hearts can do nothing to alter that judgement. [1] http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/10440782 http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/10440782 [2] http://www.rerf.jp/radefx/genetics_e/birthdef.html http://www.rerf.jp/radefx/genetics_e/birthdef.html
mpyne 13y ago
Good thing no life forms are exposed to radiation such as UV, cosmic rays, or naturally-occuring radioactive elements such as Carbon-14, Potassium-40, or Uranium then, we'd be screwed after only a few generations! Oh, wait...
- peterpathname 13y ago
  what's your point? people do get old and sick. the fact that radiation exists naturally in the environment doesn't mean its good for you, and doesnt mean that more won't pose an increased health hazard
  - mpyne 13y ago
    On the other hand, it does mean that we were evolved to at least be able to procreate in the presence of a constant radiation flux. There's such a wide gulf in possible levels of radiation exposure that radiation health physicists are to this very day still unsure whether constant exposure to low levels of radiation is actually harmful at all. They haven't even been able to rule out that it's not beneficial. But either way, if you're worried about exposure to radiation you should be more worried about coal plants than nuclear plants; coal plants emit so much radioactivity to the environment that their exhaust would generate more power in a nuke plant, if it could be harvested properly.
    - justatdotin 13y ago
      yes we can procreate in the presence of some radiation: could you set a lower compliance bar for any pollutant? beneficial impacts are pretty much fringe science. FWIW, there has been experimental demonstration of minimal ionizing radiation causing mutation in a single cell. and most regulatory standards around the world continue to reduce 'acceptable limits'. I think the most recent example is the reduction in exposure to radon exposure that has been recognised in a number of national standards. I read that as showing that people who understand the science more than myself are still, decades later, finding more cause for caution.
      - 13y ago

philjohn 13y ago

Add sex to the list - HPV is sexually transmitted and is thought to cause a scary percentage of certain cancers.