Merged nuclear power safe?

[MattusMaximus]

Also please note that he originally spoke of radioactive materials in food generally, and only switched to caesium once he had to see that his position was just stupid.

Just in case someone did not notice where that goalpost went.

Ah, I missed that, thanks.

I don't think I'll waste any more time on this discussion, as I see where it is leading. It's especially futile in light of the fact that r-j has already admitted that it's impossible to avoid radiation in the food supply.

The fact that he/she keeps going on and on about various mostly artificially-occurring radioactive isotopes - and not stopping to discuss the more relevant issues of amounts & dosages (whether the isotope in question is natural or artificial) - speaks volumes. I am getting the feeling that he/she is almost trying to avoid a quantitative discussion, because then that wouldn't be as emotionally appealing (i.e. continued references on his/her part to "being disgusted").

Cheers - MM

 

[Aepervius]

There is an old saying in the legal profession; "When the facts are against you, pound the law. When the law is against you, pound the facts. When the law and the facts are against you, pound the table."

I'm seeing lot of furniture abuse and wasted bandwidth in your posts, but little evidence and logic.

Deja vu

 

[Aepervius]

Ah, I missed that, thanks.

I don't think I'll waste any more time on this discussion, as I see where it is leading. It's especially futile in light of the fact that r-j has already admitted that it's impossible to avoid radiation in the food supply.

The fact that he/she keeps going on and on about various mostly artificially-occurring radioactive isotopes - and not stopping to discuss the more relevant issues of amounts & dosages (whether the isotope in question is natural or artificial) - speaks volumes. I am getting the feeling that he/she is almost trying to avoid a quantitative discussion, because then that wouldn't be as emotionally appealing (i.e. continued references on his/her part to "being disgusted").

Cheers - MM

I'll admit that I find the discussion funny, sort of comedic. I am off to sleep now anyway. So he can "storm" in this thread tea cup as much as he/she wants.

 

[r-j]

I've seen this same sort of behavior before. No matter that you got caught making something up, and lied about it, something disgusting, it doesn't matter, because your friends will support a lie rather than confronting you.

Is this what Randi wants his forum to be? Liars and false claims made?

Then when somebody points this out, try to go after the person telling the truth. It's disgusting.

 

[Christian Klippel]

r-j,

let me ask you a question.

Would protest against a huge reactor built where you can see it in broad daylight, that does not have any containment vessels around it, and that will send huge amounts of radiation your way, so much so that you can even get skin cancer from it?

Greetings,

Chris

 

[Skwinty]

There are environmental survey laboratories at nuclear power stations.
One of their main functions is to visit all dairy farms on a weekly basis.

They collect samples of milk, grass, air and all related dairy products. These samples are brought to the lab and reduced to carbon in special incinerators.

This residue is then placed in a lead castle which houses a germanium or silicon lithium detector. The purpose of the lead castle is to minimise background radiation. The detector run time can be quite long, any thing from 30 minutes to 3 hours.

If, amongst naturally occurring radio isotopes, any trace of iodine 131 or cesium 137 is detected, all hell breaks loose as these two isotopes are the indicator to a radio active leak at the power station.

All dairy produce will then be destroyed. Cesium 137 and Iodine 131 comes primarly from the fission process so don't expect to see that in your milk in any significant amount.

There probably still is cesium 137 from Chernobyl and previous nuclear weapons testing around, but once again only in trace amounts.
We have lived with these levels for decades now with no apparent major health impact, so IMO there is no cause for alarm.

Even if we had no atomic bombs or reactors ever, we would still be exposed to naturally occurring ionising radiation and still die of cancer.
After all, we are not designed to live forever.

It just shows to me how fickle the human species is. In the 50's uranium was almost commercially worshipped as a god. Just google uranium ice cream and you will get the idea.

Anyway, get used to radiation as it has been a part, and always will be a part of life from conception to death.

 

[MattusMaximus]

I've seen this same sort of behavior before. No matter that you got caught making something up, and lied about it, something disgusting, it doesn't matter, because your friends will support a lie rather than confronting you.

Is this what Randi wants his forum to be? Liars and false claims made?

Then when somebody points this out, try to go after the person telling the truth. It's disgusting.

Fine, you're disgusted. Good for you. I'm glad that you feel morally outraged.

If you want to go on and on about a particular Forum member lying, whether this be the case or not, take it up with them. After all, I was the one who provided you both with the link to more info on cesium 137, so don't go accusing me of any kind of dishonesty.

Now, can we get past this point? Can we now actually discuss the relevant issues of the amounts & dosages of whatever radioactive isotopes are supposedly invading the food supply? Whether these isotopes are artificial or natural is irrelevant; the relevant questions are these:

1) What are the amounts in which these isotopes have been measured?

- and -

2) What radiation dosage is associated with those amounts? (As a corollary: Is this dosage in any way, shape or form dangerous given the usual absorption of radiation via food? - about 40 mrem/year per person)

Are you interested in actually discussing these points, or would you like to continue your rant of moral outrage? If it is the latter, I have no more time for you.

 

[Aepervius]

All dairy produce will then be destroyed. Cesium 137 and Iodine 131 comes primarly from the fission process so don't expect to see that in your milk in any significant amount.

There probably still is cesium 137 from Chernobyl and previous nuclear weapons testing around, but once again only in trace amounts.
We have lived with these levels for decades now with no apparent major health impact, so IMO there is no cause for alarm.

I agree which is why I keep telling r-j that it will be negligible trace. Statistically non zero, but near enough that it can be ignored.

I found a Croatian study which said they double the amount of trace Cs137 from before and after Chernobyl in dairy milk (if I understood the study correctly), but the end level was so negligible that I am wondering how they can measure such trace amounts...

 

[r-j]

If, amongst naturally occurring radio isotopes, any trace of iodine 131 or cesium 137 is detected, all hell breaks loose as these two isotopes are the indicator to a radio active leak at the power station.

All dairy produce will then be destroyed. Cesium 137 and Iodine 131 comes primarly from the fission process so don't expect to see that in your milk in any significant amount.

Thank you! Good to see an intelligent and informed person speak up on this. You have restored my faith.

 

[Hindmost]

I've seen this same sort of behavior before. No matter that you got caught making something up, and lied about it, something disgusting, it doesn't matter, because your friends will support a lie rather than confronting you.

Is this what Randi wants his forum to be? Liars and false claims made?

Then when somebody points this out, try to go after the person telling the truth. It's disgusting.

Please point out any lie I have ever posted on this or any other subject if you really wish discuss such things.

glenn

 

[MattusMaximus]

Thank you! Good to see an intelligent and informed person speak up on this. You have restored my faith.

Did you bother to read all of Skwinty's post, which basically agrees with what most of us here have been saying on this topic?

 

[Skwinty]

Did you bother to read all of Skwinty's post, which basically agrees with what most of us here have been saying on this topic?

Aaah, but I said the words he wanted to hear.

 

[MattusMaximus]

Aaah, but I said the words he wanted to hear.

Somewhat, but more importantly I think he decided to ignore all of the other words that he didn't want to hear.

 

[r-j]

There probably still is cesium 137 from Chernobyl and previous nuclear weapons testing around, but once again only in trace amounts.

There is Cesium137 from Chernobyl, from above ground nuclear explosions, and from experiments done in the fifties and sixties.

We have lived with these levels for decades now with no apparent major health impact, so IMO there is no cause for alarm.

Utterly untrue, and insulting to all the scientists who have studied the effects of Cesium137 for the last 80 years.

Even if we had no atomic bombs or reactors ever, we would still be exposed to naturally occurring ionising radiation and still die of cancer.
After all, we are not designed to live forever.

Has little to nothing to do with the discussion of Cesium137 in milk and other foods.

 

[Skwinty]

There is Cesium137 from Chernobyl, from above ground nuclear explosions, and from experiments done in the fifties and sixties.

Yes, in trace amounts.

Utterly untrue, and insulting to all the scientists who have studied the effects of Cesium137 for the last 80 years.

What percentage of the worlds population has died or suffered any ill health from Cs 137?

Whatever percentage you believe, can you provide evidence to back it up?

Has little to nothing to do with the discussion of Cesium137 in milk and other foods.

It may not be relevant to CS 137 or I131 in food, but it is a fact of life.

Get used to it.

 

[MattusMaximus]

There is Cesium137 from Chernobyl, from above ground nuclear explosions, and from experiments done in the fifties and sixties.
Utterly untrue, and insulting to all the scientists who have studied the effects of Cesium137 for the last 80 years.
Has little to nothing to do with the discussion of Cesium137 in milk and other foods.

Hmmm, so much for Skwinty being an "intelligent and informed person" according to r-j - that didn't take long to turn 180 degrees

 

[Sword_Of_Truth]

It's as if somebody claimed that all food contains raw human feces, in very small amounts. That is how disgusting it sounds.

I'd be more worried and disgusted by traces of human poop than by a few becquerels of cesium.

 

[Skwinty]

Talking about poop, here is another task of the environmental survey lab.

Collect sewage from the local sewage works, reduce to carbon and assay that. When radio isotopes are found, the people who live in the area who receive chemo therapy are traced, kept on a register and investigated as to what medication they take. This data is then compared to the results of the sewage assay.

The results are accurate enough to determine changes in the local cancer treatment population.

 

[JihadJane]

You mean , like the green and environmentalist nuts which use scare mongering and not science or fact ?

That is a discussion for another thread.

No, I mean nuclear power.

Every year, many millions of dollars are spent selling it.

 

[Skwinty]

No, I mean nuclear power.

Every year, many millions of dollars are spent selling it.

Every year, billions of dollars are spent buying it.