Best way to counter radiation scare

[Drunken Hobo]

Out of interest, how many of these people who are afraid of Wi-fi, smoke cigarettes?

Perhaps the way I'd deal with it is to explain to them what "electromagnetic hypersensitivity" is, then get themselves to put their head near a router, laptop or mobile phone, and ask them if they start to feel ill/pain. They will likely say yes, at which point you inform them that the device is off, and they just invented any pain or sickness.

Either they'll realise they're wrong & be open to the concept that they're wrong about other things, or they'll be so pig-headed that they're not worth the time or effort.

Edited January 5, 2014 by Drunken Hobo

[rkman]

Microwaves are not healthy.

Not generally true. It depends on the field strength.

But the part about the satellite dish makes me faceplam. Dishes RECIEVE satellite signals which are everywhere.

Many satellite signals are in the microwave range (300 MHz to 300 GHz).

[MBobrik]

Just ignore MBrobrik when he accuses anyone of making a straw man argument. It is his stock response to anyone who doesn't agree with him.

That is simply not true. Nobody said what rkman implied. If you think I've missed something, then please show me what. Otherwise I will just conclude that you are just angry that I saw straight through someone's demagoguery which you happen to like.

[MBobrik]

Microwaves are not healthy.

.

not at normal signal strengths used in RF communication (or leaking out of a normal microwave oven). If you crank up the intensity to levels where heat damage to tissues can occur, it is another matter of course. but even then, it is the heat that does the damage. not the microwaves.

[lajoswinkler]

I remember in my grade 9 science class, the teacher did a demonstration with various gas discharge tubes and diffraction gratings that allowed us to see the different spectra. A fairly typical demonstration, which I think most people have seen at some point. A couple years later, another chemistry class was covering related material, and the demonstration wouldn't have been at all out of place, especially since most of that class hadn't seen it before. Except this time, we had to settle for YouTube videos of it because the school board won't let us get exposed to the radiation.

I think the most ironic part is that the classroom was lit entirely with fluorescent lights, which is the same phenomenon.

That can be solved easily using legal ways. The problem is that probably nobody tried, so the stupid people prevailed.

If that happened in my school, I wouldn't keep quiet.

My grandmother refuses to get a satellite dish because of the "radiation".

Now that's something a psychiatrist should deal with, honestly.

Microwaves are not healthy. But the part about the satellite dish makes me faceplam. Dishes RECIEVE satellite signals which are everywhere. And those signals are not nuclear radiation.

Microwaves or microwave ovens? Exposure to microwaves of such intensities and frequencies as encountered in microwave ovens is really bad for you (it cooks meat, lol), but microwave ovens are completely harmless things if operated properly because they shield all that. If you remove the protective screen and put your balls close to the opening, you'll have a warm omelette for diner, but it's your fault.

[Palladium Corp]

I was reading through this thread, and I just noticed an advert in the top right of the screen for EMF detectors!

Anyway, alpha (⁴He nucleus) emitters are generally safe as long as they are further than a few centimetres away. You are generally in trouble when they enter the body, which is why radioactive contamination can be so dangerous.2⁴¹Am, an alpha emitter, is used in many smoke alarm systems with no, or little, danger to public health.

Beta- (electron) emitters are slightly more dangerous at a distance, due to increased effective range and penetrative ability. However, the ionisation strength of beta particles is much lower than alpha particles. These are sometimes used as medical tracers, due to the lower risk to bodily tissue than alpha emitters.

Beta+ (positron) emitters are more dangerous still, as the e⁺ particles emitted can annihilate electrons in the body and form two high energy gamma rays!

Gamma (high energy photon) emitters have a broader range of energies. Higher energy gamma photons are the most damaging to bodily tissue, but also are the most likely to pass straight through without interacting. Lower energy gamma photons do less damage, but are more likely to interact.

Any medical tracer needs to be either a beta or gamma emitter with short half-life and a (relatively) harmless decay chain. Hence the use of Technetium and Barium radioisotopes.

I wonder how many people who have a PET scan realise that the P stands for Positron, which is antimatter...

[Kerbart]

.

not at normal signal strengths used in RF communication (or leaking out of a normal microwave oven). If you crank up the intensity to levels where heat damage to tissues can occur, it is another matter of course. but even then, it is the heat that does the damage. not the microwaves.

That's like saying jumping from the top of a large building doesn't kill you. It's the impact at ground level that does, but not the jumping. Obviously the waves are causing side effects that are visible at high strength, but who's to say those side effects are not doing damage at low intensity but prolonged exposure?

Personally my non-scientific opinion is that there are no such side effects. But I'm just pointing out that your reasoning is not exactly water-tight, which it needs to be when you're discussing this with those opposed. Because they'll use exactly the same arguments.

[lajoswinkler]

Alpha emitters are benign unless ingested or inhaled, especially inhaled. Inhaling them leads to you on a fast route towards pulmonary cancer.

Beta emitters are probably the most versatile of them all. If weak, they are not worse than alpha rays. If strong, they will quickly give you radiation burns if you're in their vicinity or radiation poisoning if you ingest them, meaning you'll probably die out of total immune system collapse way before any cancer develops.

Gamma rays mostly pass through us, but the ones that are stopped by our body water turns that water into a trail of reactive molecules which wreck havoc with out cell proteins.

But that's rays. It's the matter that's problematic. If the radioactive source is not dispersable (cobalt-60 rod, encapsulated cesium-137, ...) your only concerns are shielding, duration of exposure and distance.

If it's dispersable (radon seeping from your floor, burning metallic plutonium in the lab, water contaminated with cesium-137, carbonates and sulfates of strontium-90 in the dirt on the road being lifted by the wind), you need actual suit and a breathing mask with special filters because that **** will enter your body and get absorbed by your bones and then you won't have a nice day... or the rest of your life.

As unshielded/uncapsulated radioactive compounds and elements aren't something we encounter in our daily lives, we don't have to worry about them.

Typical nonionizing sources technology provides need to be powered with electricity.

One thing you ought to pay attention to are static electrical fields. Magnetic fields don't interact with us unless they're stupendously intensive, but even rather weak electrical fields will give you a headache after few hours because they polarize our cells.

[MBobrik]

but who's to say those side effects are not doing damage at low intensity but prolonged exposure?

.

I think that everyone understands that thermal effects are not linear nor accumulate linearly. Increase tissue temperature by 20°C and you will get burns in matter of seconds. increase the temperature by 0.2°C and keep it like that for years and nothing happens. Boil an egg at 100°C and it will be done in a few minutes. However, no amount of long-term "boiling" it in 10°C water will get the job done ever.

.

Or, as in your example, jumping from 10 m = serious injury. but 10 x jumping down from 1 m = nothing.

[PakledHostage]

That is simply not true. Nobody said what rkman implied.

Right. Not even rkman said what you seem to think he said. Your own bias and demagoguery are leading you to read more into rkman's comments than what others here are reading.

I am not going to defend rkman's "excepionalism" remark, but the other two remarks that you called "straw men" are entirely reasonable as evidenced by the fact that they are echoed by many of the more knowledgable, reasonable and even pro nuclear energy contributors to this thread.

[Palladium Corp]

even rather weak electrical fields will give you a headache after few hours because they polarize our cells

This is because of the way Hydrogen and Oxygen bond with each other. Water is very slightly diamagnetic, and our body is mostly water.

[MBobrik]

I am not going to defend rkman's "excepionalism" remark,

So even you are forced to admit that the "excepionalism" remark was a straw man.

but the other two remarks that you called "straw men" are entirely reasonable as evidenced by the fact that they are echoed by many of the more knowledgable...

And now to the two other remarks.

How does that mean there is no radiation danger whatsoever (from Fukushima or otherwise)?

Nobody said here that. So it is knocking down a straw man he himself made.

The realistic approach to 'the radiation scare' is neither to say that all radiation is harmful, nor to say that radiation is generally harmless.

Which is almost trivially true, however, again, no one said that "radiation is generally harmless" so it is again a straw man.

So again. Either you will show me that someone here actually said or implied that "there is no radiation danger whatsoever" or "that radiation is generally harmless" or you will have to admit that these are straw men too.

[peadar1987]

Er, no we don't. What we might run a little short of in the next few years is spare capacity in the grid. We've only got about 5% spare generation capacity at the moment which is a bit tight, but not a shortage. We're in a bit of a pinch point over the next few years due to some of the larger coal plants going end of life, but things are scheduled to improve as the new plants come online.

A new nuclear power plant at Hinkley was just given the green light a few months ago. First in decades. What they're really worried about is how to pay for it, not how safe it is.

The current generation of nuclear plants are also going to go offline soon as well. We'll get maybe 5-10 years out of Hunterston, Hinkley Point, Hartlepool and Heysham 1, a couple more out of Heysham 2 and Torness. Dungeness is anyone's guess. It's filling the gap between them shutting down and new-build stations like Sizewell and Hinkley Point C coming online that's the problem. Things like this need to be planned many decades in advance, because otherwise you run short in the interim.

in fact none died or suffered permanent injury due to radiation induced conditions.

All fatalities and injuries were due to mechanical problems that would have happened irrespective of the nature of the power generation system there.

Not to mention the fact that far more people are thought to have died due to the rushed evacuation than would have of cancer or radiation if they were just left in their homes!

[Palladium Corp]

In my opinion, Thorium reactors are the future (at least until fusion becomes viable), because Thorium is inherently safer than Uranium, is more common, and there is less waste to deal with. Also, Thorium bombs are not possible, unlike Uranium.

[lajoswinkler]

This is because of the way Hydrogen and Oxygen bond with each other. Water is very slightly diamagnetic, and our body is mostly water.

I'm talking about electrical fields, not magnetic. Water is a polar molecule, and so are proteins. This is electrical influence, polarization, not diamagnetism.

When a cell is in a sufficiently intensive electrical field, membrane proteins, responsible for ion exchange, behave differently, so a local ionic disbalance occurs. Neurons any myocytes are quite sensitive to this, in the sense that they'll perform differently under such load.

Even sufficiently intensive radiowaves of very low frequencies can induce such effects. Headaches are the most prominent symptom.

[Seret]

In my opinion, Thorium reactors are the future (at least until fusion becomes viable), because Thorium is inherently safer than Uranium, is more common, and there is less waste to deal with.

They certainly warrant further study, but aren't ready for the big time just yet. The molten salt reactors do look promising, and it looks like serious research is restarting with new experimental reactors in India and China IIRC. But don't hold your breath waiting for the thorium cycle to replace uranium any time soon. If anything it'll operate in parallel, mostly as mixed uranium-thorium fuel. Starting up a whole separate fuel cycle involves non-trivial costs if it's not being bankrolled by the military like the uranium cycle was.

As for waste, the products of thorium reactors are still intensely radioactive, and it's activity that's the problem with current high-level wastes, not volume. So they don't represent a solution to that problem.

Also, Thorium bombs are not possible, unlike Uranium.

They do still generate a grab-bag of fun transuranics, so there is a still a proliferation issue.

[Kryten]

Also, Thorium bombs are not possible, unlike Uranium.

Thorium reactors work by producing (fissile) uranium-233 from (non-fissile) thorium by neutron bombardment; U-233 is usable for nuclear weapons, and India (the country with the largest thorium reactor program) and the US have both tested devices that used it.

[MBobrik]

In my opinion, Thorium reactors are the future (at least until fusion becomes viable), because Thorium is inherently safer than Uranium, is more common, and there is less waste to deal with. Also, Thorium bombs are not possible, unlike Uranium.

.

I agree that thorium is a better fuel, however, thorium "works" by converting to uranium 233 which can be used in nuclear bombs. It is far more difficult to do so as with plutonium, though.

edit:ninja'd

Edited January 5, 2014 by MBobrik

[Palladium Corp]

Fair enough

[MBobrik]

I

When a cell is in a sufficiently intensive electrical field, membrane proteins, responsible for ion exchange, behave differently, so a local ionic disbalance occurs.

.

cellular membranes have normally a relatively high potential differential to begin with. gradients within a cell membrane can be as high as 10e8 V/m. so any external disturbance has to be compared to that values.

[MBobrik]

As for waste, the products of thorium reactors are still intensely radioactive, and it's activity that's the problem with current high-level wastes, not volume. So they don't represent a solution to that problem.

.

Low volume high level waste is the most suitable for vitrification and deep burial in subduction zones because if you want to drill several kilometers deep, you won't generally be able to dump high volumes down.

[jwenting]

.

Low volume high level waste is the most suitable for vitrification and deep burial in subduction zones because if you want to drill several kilometers deep, you won't generally be able to dump high volumes down.

and that high level waste won't remain high level waste for long anyway as it decays very rapidly into radiologically harmless components.

[rkman]

Belated, but for the record: i had misunderstood what Kryten was replying to. (though it would have helped if he'd have quoted what he was replying to even though it was the comment right above his reply).

I stand by the rest of my comment re there being exaggeration on both sides of the argument.

[MBobrik]

I stand by the rest of my comment re there being exaggeration on both sides of the argument.

Some people, and I believe you are one of them, believe that each controversy happens between two utter extremes, and the right answer is always in the middle between the two.

Which might be good for certain situations like child squabbles, ethnic feuds, territorial disputes or handling conflicting resource claims,where the compromise may even be an good unto itself.

It does not any good however, when they enter a discussion where for example the answers are binary complements like A vs. not A . exists vs. not exists. true/false. What would the compromise between truth and and utter falsehood ? half-truth ? When one side argues that 2+2=4 and the other that 2+2=5, the compromise value of 4.5 is from a certain point of view even more wrong.

And it can also happen, that the debate is not between proponents of two extremes, but between proponents of the optimal solution vs one sided extremists. the universe got no duty to provide us always with nice symmetrical situations. Even more devious is, when someone like this gets the say in a debate between proponents od some compromise and extremists on the other side. He will argue for a point halfway between the previous compromise and the extreme, which then becomes the new compromise and the extremists launch debate 2 between this new compromise and their extreme, then debate 3 ... resulting into an exponential fall into the extreme.

.

A nice example of such an asymmetrical debate is the debate between nuclear energy proponents and nuclear energy opponents where the "opponent" side is an extreme ( all nuclear energy got to be rejected ) but the "proponent" side is not the indiscriminate "everything nuclear is always good and harmless" extreme, but proponents of some kind of optimal/compromise solution which acknowledges dangers and costs, but came to conclusion that certain applications have their merit.

.

Fence sitting and declaring that both sides are equally exaggerating/unreasonable (and thus feeling smarter than them both) is not right here and does no good.

Edited January 6, 2014 by MBobrik

[PakledHostage]

Some people, and I believe you are one of them, believe that each controversy happens between two utter extremes, and the right answer is always in the middle between the two.

And a notable subset of those people are called engineers. Almost every technology has risks and requires compromises. Certain technologies, such as nuclear and aviation, also require strict regulatory oversight to prevent people in those industries from cutting corners or repeating past mistakes. Nuclear energy proponents who dismiss the risks do just as much damage as environmentalists who dismiss the environmental benefits of nuclear energy. Both parties may base their arguments on science (i.e. physics and environmental sciences), but their "demagoguery" costs each side credibility. I admit that I have learned some things about nuclear energy from some of the contributors to these forums, but it wasn't from people who see it as a black vs. white issue. We need to have informed debates, work to educate the voting public and politicians about the issues on both sides, and (sadly) reach compromises.

Edited January 6, 2014 by PakledHostage
Switched the order of two sentences to improve clarity