0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
So it is clear that a single nuclear accident widely offsets any "gains" obtained by using a nuclear plant instead of a coal plant.
The Aberfan disaster was a catastrophic collapse of a colliery spoil tip in the Welsh village of Aberfan, near Merthyr Tydfil, on 21 October 1966, killing 116 children and 28 adults. It was caused by a build-up of water in the accumulated rock and shale, which suddenly started to slide downhill in the form of slurry.
Yes Alan, and I agree on that we, as a species, don't seem to worry overmuch for consequences, when developing and trying out new technology. We seem to have an innate trust in our ability to survive, combined with an innate ability to look the other way when evidence start to compile for something not being that smart, as we first thought.
That's one point.Another is what background radiation we expect ourselves to be comfortable with over a thousand years, as some short time scenario.
A third should be the way radioactive dust builds up in concentrations through biological accumulation, if it works the same way DDT and other toxins does it's 10 X 10 X etc, accumulating for each part of the food chain. And when I die its journey starts all over again. What I mean is that it will be in circulation for a awfully long time.
A fourth should be at what level of radiation we need to start worrying."Guidelines on exposure to low doses of radiation have largely been based on estimated risks from models using data from Japanese survivors of the atomic bombs, where radiation exposures were brief and very much higher. As a result, there have been some long-standing uncertainties about the extrapolation of these risks to low radiation doses.
The researchers conclude that the size of the increased risk of childhood leukaemia with natural gamma-ray exposure is consistent with these models and supports their continued use in radiation protection. The results of the study contradict the idea that there are no adverse radiation effects, or might even be beneficial effects, at these very low doses and dose rates.
A new medical concept has emerged, increasingly supported by the latest research, called “fetal origins of disease,” that centers on the evidence that a multitude of chronic diseases, including cancer, often have their origins in the first few weeks after conception
It is now established medical advice that pregnant women should avoid any exposure to x-rays, medicines or chemicals...
Seems I was wrong?Questioning the idea of a x-ray doubling the cancer risk?
The point here might be how much 'natural radiation' from polonium exist?
- 1950’s, average background radiation went > 1 mSv (max. public limit for radiation exposure)- 1960's, Due to 2,400 open air atomic bomb tests radioactive fallout, > 2 mSv - 1994, average background radiation, Chernobyl, TMI, other accidents and dumping; > 3 mSv- 2002, average background radiation, more accidents, spills, ocean/air dumping > 3.6 mSv- 2014, average background radiation, Fukushima mega disaster and more dumping > 6.2 mSv (max. limit for public has been raised 600%)…the average annual radiation dose per person in the U.S. is 620 millirem (6.2 milliSieverts)."
One could probably get a good estimate of background radiation by observing the steel in ships (or even cars) built in the early 1900's, WWII, then in each decade since then, especially if one could control for the iron/steel source.
As I understand it, the power of the average medical X-Ray has been decreasing a lot over time,