Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!henry
From: henry@utzoo.UUCP (Henry Spencer)
Newsgroups: net.followup
Subject: Re: Lockport Blast: safety of oi - (nf)
Message-ID: <4197@utzoo.UUCP>
Date: Thu, 9-Aug-84 21:01:21 EDT
Article-I.D.: utzoo.4197
Posted: Thu Aug  9 21:01:21 1984
Date-Received: Thu, 9-Aug-84 21:01:21 EDT
References: <447@tty3b.UUCP>, <3400017@ea.UUCP>
Organization: U of Toronto Zoology
Lines: 48

I never saw the original of the following -- our news feed was a bit
erratic for a week or so -- so I'll have to hope that the followups
quoted it accurately.

> Come on, Henry, everyone should know by now that ALL radiation is dangerous.
> There is no such thing as a "safe level"; there is only a officially 
> approved "acceptable level".  "Acceptable" to whom is never talked about.
> "Stuff at that level" is most certainly dangerous, but there isn't a whole
> hell of a lot we can do about it.  We can, however, try to avoid adding any
> more exposure.

Actually, there almost certainly *is* a safe level somewhere; trouble is,
we know very little about the chronic effects of low-level radiation.  So
the health calculations all assume that the effects are linear right down
to zero.  The idea that they assume a "safe threshold" is a vicious lie
promulgated by the more fanatical antinuclear people.

Granted, all radiation is dangerous.  Including the radiation from, say,
a coal-burning power plant's exhaust.  Yes, coal-burning plants do emit
radioactive materials:  there are natural radioactive isotopes in coal, as
in most other things, and they end up in the atmosphere when the coal is
burned.  A coal-burning power plant of a given capacity emits *far* more
radioactive junk than a comparable nuclear plant.  In fact, it emits more
than the nuclear plant is *allowed* to emit; if coal power plants were
subject to the same rules as nuclear plants, they would all be shut down
at once.

Nuclear plants in fact emit very little radioactive material.  I probably
got more radiation exposure from my trip to Salt Lake City (which has a
higher background radiation level because of its higher altitude) than I
would from living next to a reactor for years.  The only reason I say
"probably" is that I haven't checked the numbers; I'm almost sure of it.

>I can't believe this.  This man is comparing "a few centuries" worth of
>high-level radioactive waste with a fall from a rooftop.  This is incredible.

Frankly, I would take a slight rise in the background radiation level over
the fall from the rooftop any day.  Falling from a rooftop has a high
probability of being fatal.

More seriously, why the hell *not* compare them?!?  The two are different
animals only if your attitude toward radiation is ignorance and hysterical
fear.  Both can kill you.  Both involve quantifiable risks.  Which involves
the least risk per kilowatt-hour of power?  Turns out to be nuclear power.
This may be surprising, but there is nothing incredible about it.
-- 
				Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology
				{allegra,ihnp4,linus,decvax}!utzoo!henry