🚀 go-pugleaf

ZJKL10@etsu-tn.edu wrote:
>
>
> > But there are studies which do show that moderate increases
> > in radiation (even 2 to 3 times normal background) do NOT cause
> > additional health problems.

since background varies with location, altitude, geology, etc, it is
no wonder these types of studies cannot be done.

> That's a tricky thing to determine.  The lethal dose level varies
> with the individual but can be predicted using a bell shaped curve.
> What the show said was somewhere around 200 REMs can kill a person
> but it didn't give any more information like mean and standard
> deviation.

the accepted radiological dose to cause death in 50% of a human
population (LD50) is 450 - 500 rem delivered over a short period of
time (perhaps hours).  In the case of 200 rem, survival is possible
with proper medical treatment.
>

> The question remains, is background radiation safe?
> Or as I suspect, enough to allow us to reproduce without
> radiation induced complications.
 I would think that if background radiation was not safe, then
humanity would not have gotten as far as it has (good or bad).
Remember, background radiation has been in the universe from just past
T=0 (see Hawkings - Brief History of Time).

>
> > One should spend resources on what will increase health,
> > not on things which won't make a difference (or much less difference).
> > And, quite argueably, nuclear power can reduce radiation exposure,
> > compared to coal, which is really the competator source.
agree - childhood vaccinations would probably be the best thing to do
to improve life on the planet

>
> Okay.
>
> > The point is, we are going to generate electricity anyway, so we
> > should use methods which have low impact and risk, like nuclear power.
>
 snip

> But getting back to the Frontline program, in France the society
> is completely different from the states.  That part was a wow.
> Education programs, plant tours, standardized design & lower cost,
> recycling programs, and even research to find new and hopefully
> safe uses.  But that'll never happen here.
>
> > Maybe you aren't seeing the costs (risks) of the alternatives.
>
> I know some of the costs, but it does not matter in the long term.
> The economics no longer favor centralized power plants like coal
> or nuclear, but instead favor a distributive network of point sources.
> I suspect natural gas and wind power will replace older sources,
> then solar power will take over.
>
>
>-------------------==== Posted via Deja News ====-----------------------
>      http://www.dejanews.com/     Search, Read, Post to Usenet