Skip to main content

View Diary: Republican Suggested "Sprinkling" Radioactive Waste on America (151 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  But Don't Kill the Messenger (6+ / 0-)

    What became of the scientific studies which put forth the theory that radioactivity in certain doses can indeed reduce the statistical probability of getting certain cancers?  Those studies were performed and published.  Were they completely debunked?  I remember the incidences of cancers were plotted at an increasing radius (and decreasing radioactivity level) from the Hiroshima or Nagasaki blast centers and they did show a decrease at a certain radius.  If that theory is still valid and we're ignoring it, then we're really no better than climate change deniers.

    And don't get me wrong, I for one don't want to take part in some savage experiment initiated by a bunch of hacks where the entire country is blanketed with low level radiation.  I'm just commenting on the validity of a certain scientific observation.

    •  how many ways do we get access to radiation these (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      rhauenstein, ozsea1

      days? flying, xrays, the ozone layer, fukushima- and those are the ones that come easily and im no scientist

      we are even irradiating our some of our  food now
      more radiation is not the answer to all of our health problems
      but i guarantee you less radiation would be a great start to less health problems

      and i wont even bring up what we should do with  radioactive waste.

      "With malice toward none, with charity for all..." -Abraham Lincoln not a modern republican

      by live1 on Wed Sep 19, 2012 at 08:49:00 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Irradiated food is not radioactive, just sterile. (8+ / 0-)

        We are the principled ones, remember? We don't get to use the black hats' tricks even when it would benefit us. Political Compass: -6.88, -6.41

        by bmcphail on Wed Sep 19, 2012 at 09:05:18 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Yep (3+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Troutfishing, spacecadet1, bmcphail

          Knee-jerk phobias against anything "nucular" are just as stupid as Robinson's whack-a-doodle.

          On the Internet, nobody knows if you're a dog... but everybody knows if you're a jackass.

          by stevemb on Wed Sep 19, 2012 at 12:40:47 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

        •  Actually, it is possible to induce radioactivity (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:

          in food or anything else with gamma or even x-rays.  I would assume that the energy levels used in food irradiation are  chosen specifically to prevent that from happening though.

          There is no saving throw against stupid.

          by Throw The Bums Out on Wed Sep 19, 2012 at 02:10:21 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  For what it's worth: (0+ / 0-)

            Wikipedia  "induced radioactivity"

            A less common form involves removing a neutron via photodisintegration. In this reaction, a high energy photon (gamma ray) strikes a nucleus with an energy greater than the binding energy of the atom, releasing a neutron. This reaction has a minimum cutoff of 2 MeV (for hydrogen) and around 10 MeV for most heavy nuclei. Many radionuclides do not produce gamma rays with energy high enough to induce this reaction. The isotopes used in food irradiation (cobalt-60, caesium-137) both have energy peaks below this cutoff and thus cannot induce radioactivity in the food.[1]

            Political/economic articles on Wikipedia are highly suspect but I've had better experiences with the scientific articles which mostly seem to be written by knowledgable people..

            ..but caveat emptor.....

            We are the principled ones, remember? We don't get to use the black hats' tricks even when it would benefit us. Political Compass: -6.88, -6.41

            by bmcphail on Wed Sep 19, 2012 at 06:30:19 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

    •  We would need to dredge up those (0+ / 0-)

      studies, do a "cite forward" search and find out. If I remember and have time I'll check out Pubmed.

      The founding fathers knew of the mutually corrupting influences of Church and state, wisely sending them to opposite corners.

      by emidesu on Wed Sep 19, 2012 at 09:58:47 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  The flaws in epidemiology (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:

      following Hiroshima and Nagasaki were legion.  Same can be said for Chernobyl, Three Mile Island, or Fukushima. And there is a large well funded cohort busy making sure that every single datum is the subject of controversy.

      There is a great deal less information available than you might imagine.

    •  It's still regarded as a fringe theory. (0+ / 0-)

      Even if true, for it to be genuinely useful you'd have to limit the exposure to a maximum dose. The Real World doesn't allow that option.

      Since thousands of open-air tests have left their stuff (and now called part of the "normal" background), and people get other exposures in various settings (bananas and spinach, x-rays, flights, going into radon-heavy basements and rooms, security scanners, the continuing emissions from Fukushima and Chernobyl, the daily release of "safe amounts" from every other plant which exists, etc)

      But Anne Coulter thinks the theory is great, so that's on the plus side.

      The Internet is just the tail of the Corporate Media dog.

      by Jim P on Wed Sep 19, 2012 at 02:03:48 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Don't forget living on the surface (0+ / 0-)

        Courtesy of a certain uncontained fusion reactor, there's just about no way to escape minimal doses of radiation.

        Male, 22, -4.75/-6.92, born and raised TN-05, now WI-02, remorseless supporter of Walker's recall. Pocan for Congress and Baldwin for Senate!

        by fearlessfred14 on Wed Sep 19, 2012 at 06:36:06 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  And living in Denver... (0+ / 0-)

          Which has higher levels of radiation exposure due to being in mountains with lots of granite which has Uranium which produces Radon. On top of the extra cosmic radiation dose from being at a higher altitude.

          I need better confirming evidence, but apparently the .1 rem/year excess dose criteria for Fukushima evacuation would call for the evacuation of Denver.

          On top of that there are the high levels of self exposure that smokers do to themselves which is several times the increase of just living in Denver.

          Spreading bio-accumulative radioactive isotopes is a different creature, and has an additional set of problems.

          Basically, it is not as simple as saying radiation BAD.

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site