Comment

Comment on YSK that risks to exposure of nuclear radition are often over exaggerated by considering a Linear No Threshold (LNT), which does not match with many studies.

Objection@lemmy.ml ⁨2⁩ ⁨days⁩ ago

Jesus Christ I’m so tired of this shit. “What if climate change is actually good because you can grow food in colder climates? Then we wouldn’t have to change anything, which I really don’t want to anyway.” “What if masks actually make you more likely to contract COVID? Then I wouldn’t have to wear one, which I really don’t want to anyway.” And now, “What if exposing yourself to radiation is actually good for you?”

This is absolute nonsense. The Wikipedia article is full of "[unreliable source?"] and “highly controversial,” and the video starts out with stuff like, “Actually, all the experts agree with me, they’re just afraid of speaking up,” which instantly destroyed any willingness to suspend my disbelief on this nonsense.

Yes, there is a tiny amount of radiation in a banana that isn’t enough to cause harm. But that has absolutely nothing to do with nuclear reactors. The difference between “harmless” and “extremely lethal” with radiation can change drastically depending on factors like distance, in ways that are not intuitive to most people. Treating radioactive material and radiation produced by a reactor with extreme caution is the best practice regardless, because if things go wrong, they can go very, very wrong. You cannot mishandle a banana in such a way that it destroys a city, which is a something I never thought I would have to explain.

Furthermore, your dismissal of other forms of green energy is outdated, it may have been true 20-30 years ago but the technology has advanced and will keep advancing and with the massive upfront cost of reactors it doesn’t usually make sense to build new ones (although keeping existing ones running is often reasonable imo).

source

Sort:hotnew top

CertifiedBlackGuy@lemmy.world ⁨2⁩ ⁨days⁩ ago
The up front cost of nuclear is largely all the red tape caused by fear mongering.

Which is wild because coal plants release more radiation per kW generated than nuclear.

Renewable tech has gotten far better in even the last 5 years.

It won’t ever be able to handle 24/7/365 base loads, but they’ve already proven far more robust in developing places like Texas that cannot keep their fossil fuel plants running reliably in inclement weather.

Jokes aside, seriously, the answer is, and always will be nuclear + renewables.

source
sga@piefed.social ⁨1⁩ ⁨day⁩ ago

… And now, “What if exposing yourself to radiation is actually good for you?”

you are using a guilt by association argument. yes the claim challenges what is currently percieved to be a appropriate model for nuclear damage (lnt).

I have no comments about your 2nd para. i partly agree. presenting your argument as it was done in video feels wrong.

but, what about the example studies. the town in iran, recieveing roughly 10-40 times radiation of currently considered safe limit.

Treating radioactive material and radiation produced by a reactor with extreme caution is the best practice regardless

I have written that very thing in other comments as well. idea is not to drop safety protocols. just change the fear of things by saying - you have not recieved a unsafe dosage.

here is an example of a very similar thing - consider vaccines which use weaker/incapable strains of virus. or consider the very first vaccine, where they used the “pus” from a cow, to effectively use the cow virus to develop immunity in humans. if you think about it, example kinda matches well - in very low amounts virus is not that deadly. in very large amounts, it caused a pandemic. does that mean that it also follows a linear model (no, afaik, it has more of a network effects thing, so it is sigmoidal).

I am repeating what i have said in other comments - “do not drop safety limits, spread awreness that it is not that bad”

Furthermore, your dismissal of other forms of green energy is outdated

I have completed my bachelors this year. I am by no means a expert, but i think i know enough to say that i am not 20-30 years behind. i am 5-10 behind at best (roughly the time studies take to actually be taught in courses). (yes i have studied energy).

I am very willing to actually listen things i said which are very out dated, but i would like to hear them, instead of a blanket - my information is outdated.

source