The National Forum   Donate   Your Account   On Line Opinion   Forum   Blogs   Polling   About   
The Forum - On Line Opinion's article discussion area



Syndicate
RSS/XML


RSS 2.0

Main Articles General

Sign In      Register

The Forum > Article Comments > Nuclear radiation is relatively harmless > Comments

Nuclear radiation is relatively harmless : Comments

By Wade Allison, published 8/1/2014

Although academically discredited, this hypothesis still holds sway today at a regulatory and political level and was responsible for generating the inappropriate panic in Japan, in 2011 and since.

  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. 4
  6. 5
  7. Page 6
  8. All
Noel.Wauchope,

Your comment is simply and ad hominem falasy. Do you know what that means?

Is that all you can offer?

I'd encourage other readers to ignore such silly comments, read the brochure (it is good, IMO) and Read up on Robert Hargraves if you want to, or even better read his book "Thorium: Energy cheaper than coal"

He also has many excellent presentations available that are well worth watching - of course this suggestion applies to only those who are actually interested in learning!

Here's a youtube of one presentation:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VgKfS74hVvQ&feature=channel
Posted by Peter Lang, Wednesday, 22 January 2014 10:50:43 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I stand by my comment on Robert Hargraves, That information can be found at http://www.linkedin.com/in/roberthargraves

In matters nuclear, and climate change, a guiding principle for assessing opinions is that good old question "What's In It For Whom?"
Posted by Noel.Wauchope, Wednesday, 22 January 2014 10:55:13 AM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
"Radiation: The facts" contains some useful information for educating those who know little about the subject. http://home.comcast.net/~robert.hargraves/public_html/RadiationSafety26SixPage.pdf Here is an excerpt from the last two sections:

"RADIATION POLITICS

Exposure limits that were set by LNT theory
ignore observed low-level radiation effects.
Public radiation safety limits have become
more restrictive, from 150 mSv/y (1948) to
5 mSv/y (1957) to 1 mSv/y (1991).

These rules are political and inconsistent.
Nuclear workers are allowed 50 mSv/y, and
astronauts 500 mSv/y. EPA’s limit for indoor
radon is 8 mSv/y, but 0.04 mSv/y for tritium in
drinking water. EPA limits Yucca Mountain
exposure to < 0.1 mSv/y for 10,000 years.

The LNT fallacy that any radiation can kill you
led to the ALARA principle (as low as
reasonably achievable). But achievability is
based on ever-changing technology capability,
not health effects. LNT and ALARA ratchet
limits lower and increase costs and fear.

RADIATION IS SAFE WITHIN LIMITS

An evidence-based radiation safety limit would
be 100 mSv/y. Ending LNT and ALARA rules
will enable the full environmental and
economic benefits of green nuclear power."
Posted by Peter Lang, Wednesday, 22 January 2014 7:53:25 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
To Peter Lang -
"the environmental and economic and benefits of green nuclear power"!!

Oh - pull the other leg, Mr Lang. Even you know that nuclear power, (even the new gee whiz ones still on the drawing board) leaves long lasting radioactive wastes.

Even you know that nuclear power is prohibitively expensive, whereas truly green energy, solar and wind,and energy storage are getting ever cheaper.

Even you know that the World Health Organisation and the National Academy of Sciences, and all of the world's most authoritative health bodies use the Linear No Threshold model as the guiding principle for safety in radiation exposure.

As the Director General of the World Health Organisation, Dr Margaret Chan said only recently:
"There is no safe level of ionising radiation"
Posted by Noel.Wauchope, Thursday, 23 January 2014 7:58:12 AM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Noel,

Your assertions suggest you are the classic example of a 'denier'. Totally opposed to all reason and all scientific evidence. A closed mind. I suspect you didn't read the brochure, certainly not carefully with an open mind and wanting to try to understand, did you?

I suspect you have ignored (or closed your mind to) all the evidence from over 30 years of study showing that nuclear is about the safest way to generate electricity, everything considered. Summary or recent authoritative studies here: http://nextbigfuture.com/2012/06/deaths-by-energy-source-in-forbes.html Your in-depth critique of the underlying studies would be interesting, however, you have demonstrated you are not capable of that so instead you resort to obfuscation and ad hominem fallacious arguments, right?

Fatalities per TWh:

Coal electricity – world avg 60 (62% of world energy, 50% of electricity)
Coal – USA 15
Natural Gas 4 (21% of world energy)
Biofuel/Biomass 12
Solar (rooftop) 0.44 (0.2% of world energy for all solar)
Wind 0.15 (1.6% of world energy)
Hydro (Europe) 0.10 (2.2% of world energy)
Hydro - world including Banqiao) 1.4 (about 2500 TWh/yr and 171,000 Banqiao dead)
Nuclear 0.09 (5.9% of world energy)
Posted by Peter Lang, Thursday, 23 January 2014 11:00:31 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. 4
  6. 5
  7. Page 6
  8. All

About Us :: Search :: Discuss :: Feedback :: Legals :: Privacy