Radiation plume no danger to Arizona

by darthfader 42 Replies latest social current

  • villabolo
    villabolo

    Beatthesystem: "So what? I'm not worried about radon."

    Background radiation was previously mentioned as a supposed counter argument to the dangers of aeresolized radioactive particles. I simply brought up that what is in the ground stays in the ground except under special conditions, like Radon, which presents a danger precisely because it gets released into the air and concentrated in basements.

    I was obviously using Radon as an analogy, not an issue per se.

    "I live in a region where there is a lot of radon outgassing from the ground, and I don't really care."

    I was referring to the well known fact that when Radon accumulates in basements, it presents a hazard.

    "In fact, I even keep radioactive materials in my house because it prevents cancer. If you want to up your gamma dose, an easy way to do it is to buy Fiestaware ceramic dinnerware from the 1930s in red-orange. Uranium oxide was used in the glaze to give it its color."

    I am fully aware of uranium impregnated dinnerware. FYI, that type of dinnerware dates back to the 19th century, well before the 1930's. You can even get radioactive marbles which, when put under a black light, glow in the dark.

    To this example I respond by saying, like you, "so what?". It is totally irrelevant to the issue I have been continously hammering about INHALED radioactive particles. Also, the gamma radiation output from those plates is negligible.

    Higher levels of radiation are good, up to a certain threshold. People that live at high altidudes have lower cancer rates overall than sea levelers.

    And we have to automatically assume that such lower levels of cancer has to be the reult of slightly higher levels of radiation? How about the fact that their air is cleaner? You present a fact and then jump to a unfounded conclusion.

    As far as hormesis is concerned, it sounds somewhat like an unproven alternative health kick, like wearing pyramids. But even if it were legitimate, you cannot jump to simple minded conclusions about whatever is involved with Hormesis being equivalent to INHALED particles from NUCLEAR REACTORS.

    By the way, why haven't you responded to the articles about Norway?

    Glow in the dark

    radioactive marbles

    Warning, do not inhale

    So what?

    Villabolo

  • beksbks
    beksbks

    One of those reactors contains Plutonium, that's a bit different than Gamma rays, no?

  • villabolo
    villabolo

    Beksbks: "One of those reactors contains Plutonium, that's a bit different than Gamma rays, no?"

    Not quite Beks, Plutonium emits Gamma rays. However, it' a matter of how much gamma radiation it emits and also, its chemical toxicity. Chemical toxicity assumes, of course, that the particles are inhaled. It seems that some posters are holding their breath on the issue of inhalation.

    BTS, was assuming that the lack of danger from those relatively harmless, glow in the dark plates, somehow disproved the dangers of inhaling radioactive particles. A very sweeping and unfounded assumption.

    Villabolo

Share this

Google+
Pinterest
Reddit