4 ms·

If actual measurements of radioactivity were produced rather than measurements in terms of "tons of water (with some tiny unknown percentage of radioactive comp

by glenra 13y ago

If actual measurements of radioactivity were produced rather than measurements in terms of "tons of water (with some tiny unknown percentage of radioactive component)" or "300 times the level considered safe (without saying what that level actually is)", then it would be possible to talk sensibly about how it compares to other exposure sources. Such as eating bananas, living in Colorado, getting a dental x-ray and so on. And it might still be scary if we knew the numbers, but without real numbers we can't know that it's worth worrying about.

yapcguy 13y ago
You cannot compare eating a banana to ingesting the by-products of man-made nuclear fission. I'm sorry but you have fallen hook, line and sinker for the nuclear industry's PR / propaganda / talking points. There are real numbers from the Fukushima disaster. Just because this single NYPost article does not cite that data does not mean it does not exist.
- tptacek 13y ago
  Why can't you compare eating a banana to ingesting the by-products of man-made nuclear fission? Aren't both ingestible substances bound by the same laws of physics?
- HCIdivision17 13y ago
  The point is that each of those vectors of exposure carry some obvious context. Which matters a lot: where you are in relation to the radiation matters immensely. Alpha is harmless from without, but deadly within. What are the energies of the decay, and what particles are emitted? Are there secondary/tertiary decays and when? Can the body keep up with the damage? Are we talking sunburns or cancer inducing high energy gamma or high kinetic energy alpha? Nuclear physics earns it's reputation as a complicated science. Units matter, and context matters. Perhaps we should fear bananas, or use it as a point if reference. Either way, it's a useful, comprehensible comparison, just like the others mentioned. Just think it through, and you don't need to worry about falling for hog wash.

by glenra 13y ago

yapcguy 13y ago

You cannot compare eating a banana to ingesting the by-products of man-made nuclear fission. I'm sorry but you have fallen hook, line and sinker for the nuclear industry's PR / propaganda / talking points. There are real numbers from the Fukushima disaster. Just because this single NYPost article does not cite that data does not mean it does not exist.

tptacek 13y ago
Why can't you compare eating a banana to ingesting the by-products of man-made nuclear fission? Aren't both ingestible substances bound by the same laws of physics?
HCIdivision17 13y ago
The point is that each of those vectors of exposure carry some obvious context. Which matters a lot: where you are in relation to the radiation matters immensely. Alpha is harmless from without, but deadly within. What are the energies of the decay, and what particles are emitted? Are there secondary/tertiary decays and when? Can the body keep up with the damage? Are we talking sunburns or cancer inducing high energy gamma or high kinetic energy alpha? Nuclear physics earns it's reputation as a complicated science. Units matter, and context matters. Perhaps we should fear bananas, or use it as a point if reference. Either way, it's a useful, comprehensible comparison, just like the others mentioned. Just think it through, and you don't need to worry about falling for hog wash.