Skip to main content

View Diary: The Nuclear Beast 35 Years Later (74 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  a correction must be made here . . . (0+ / 0-)
    And, unlike background radiation coming from space and bedrock, radioactive particles released by a nuclear reactor may become inhaled and embedded in lung tissue, where they can do much more harm than external radiation.
    Radon, a decay product of natural uranium and thorium in bedrock, is a gas, and is also inhaled into the lungs. And in areas such as enclosed basements, radon levels can accumulate and be far higher than background. That is what makes radon so dangerous.

    But your point about "average exposures" is entirely valid.

    In the end, reality always wins.

    by Lenny Flank on Fri Mar 28, 2014 at 09:24:16 PM PDT

    [ Parent ]

    •  Of course when you inhale a noble gas (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Joieau

      you subsequently exhale it. It isn't a particle that lodges in your tissues to provide repeated high-intensity assaults on a specific cluster of cells, nor does it go into solution and get carried to your organs and generally take up residence in living systems. In this sense the comparison with exposure to basement radon is somewhat spurious.

      •  this is all nonsense (0+ / 0-)

        Do some basic research about "radon".

        (sigh)

        In the end, reality always wins.

        by Lenny Flank on Sat Mar 29, 2014 at 05:12:06 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  sigh (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Joieau

          more vacuous slags when you're exposed. I don't suppose you have a more specific criticism of my points.

          •  sigh (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            mamooth

            Do some basic research on radon.

            PS--"exposed" as WHAT? I've been anti-nuke since before you were pooping your diapers.

            But TRUTH and FACTS still matter to some of us. Wrong is wrong, and wrong should be corrected even when it comes from our side--ESPECIALLY when it comes from our side.

            And you are wrong. As basic research into radon will show you.

            Sorry if you don't like being told you are wrong.  It won't kill you, I promise.

            In the end, reality always wins.

            by Lenny Flank on Sat Mar 29, 2014 at 06:31:17 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  you haven't said what was wrong (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              Joieau

              You continue to 'argue' with only insults.

            •  LOL!!! (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              Sandino

              Man, your audible wheezing is becoming irritating. Don't you have an inhaler?

              Your penchant for picking fights in dead threads is also irritating, as well as against what passes for not-quite "rules" on this website. Given that I am not in the habit of tossing HRs - especially invalid ones also frowned upon by those not-quite "rules" - all I can do is log my complaint about your transparent attempt to distract by making yourself and your [badly] feigned 'superiority' the focus. All the while tossing CT this and CT that and dissing those who stand against nuclear technology - the only rational stance there is on this issue - claiming personal embarrassment caused by the boogey-man scarecrow [a.k.a. straw man] you introduced here and applied to "EVERYONE on our (sic) side."

              I do not find your attitude or your oft-asserted intellectual superiority to be helpful to the effort I have been engaged in since you were in short pants. So please keep it out of my diaries in the future. Thanks.

              P.S. It's not the radon itself that causes 20,000 lung cancer deaths per year [ACS], it's radon's short-lived daughters [electrically charged] that do attach themselves to minute dust particles and lodge in the lungs. Still, the data does highlight the very important FACT that "Natural Background Radiation" is not as harmless as so many pro-nukers like to claim. And this certainly belies the constant efforts of 'officials' engaged in covering up the threats posed by the gnarly situations at WIPP and Hanford to claim that transuranic alpha, beta and gamma emitters (+ ugly daughters) are as harmless as "Natural Background Radiation."

              There are three kinds of men. The one that learns by reading. The few who learn by observation. The rest of them have to pee on the electric fence for themselves. - Will Rogers

              by Joieau on Sat Mar 29, 2014 at 10:08:40 AM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  apparently, some people are too dumb to tell who (1+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                mamooth

                is on their side and who is not.

                and dissing those who stand against nuclear technology
                Umm,  I am against nuclear technology, you dunderhead.

                What I am dissing are people who make factually untrue idiotic arguments, like "the whales are fleeing to California to escape the Fukushima radiation !!!!!" Or "bedrock radiation doesn't get inhaled into the lungs".

                Those arguments are wrong.  Period.  We look like idiots when we make them.  So don't make them.

                your oft-asserted intellectual superiority
                Says the self-proclaimed whale biology expert . . . . . . . who was utterly wrong.

                Too funny.

                Still, the data does highlight the very important FACT that "Natural Background Radiation" is not as harmless as so many pro-nukers like to claim. And this certainly belies the constant efforts of 'officials' engaged in covering up the threats posed by the gnarly situations at WIPP and Hanford to claim that transuranic alpha, beta and gamma emitters (+ ugly daughters) are as harmless as "Natural Background Radiation."
                No shit.  Or, as I just said, "But your point about 'average exposures' is entirely valid."

                You don't actually read any of my comments, do you. Or are you just picking a fight because I told you that you were wrong about something, and now your panties are in a knot. (sigh)

                In the end, reality always wins.

                by Lenny Flank on Sat Mar 29, 2014 at 10:23:30 AM PDT

                [ Parent ]

                •  More ad hominems? Yawn. (2+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  Sandino, patbahn

                  Once again, I don't care that you claim to be on my "side," or why. I am not impressed by spurious appeals to your own un-evidenced 'authority', and I have clearly stated that I don't find your fallacious, confrontational arguments to be helpful. You are being a dick in my diary. The only reason you'd still be here dead-threading is to get some kind of trolling thrills (rule-breaker 'points'). I am not playing your game, request yet again that you go play it elsewhere.

                  To any who may have arrived late or are still here - Don't feed this troll. Thanks.

                  There are three kinds of men. The one that learns by reading. The few who learn by observation. The rest of them have to pee on the electric fence for themselves. - Will Rogers

                  by Joieau on Sat Mar 29, 2014 at 11:19:45 AM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  and now we come to the Ray Pensador play----- (1+ / 0-)
                    Recommended by:
                    mamooth

                    "I'm always right, so anyone who disagrees with me is a paid shill for the enemy--so don't talk to him".

                    Too funny.

                    You learned well--but apparently you didn't read all the way to the end of the book . . . .

                    (snicker)

                    In the end, reality always wins.

                    by Lenny Flank on Sat Mar 29, 2014 at 11:42:44 AM PDT

                    [ Parent ]

              •  The Unwind on this silliness. (1+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                Sandino

                Lenny's snickering cannot change his magical scarecrow [straw man argument] into anything other than it is. I have asserted nothing in the entirety of his dead-threading campaign about which I could be "right" or care whether he "disagrees" per my right-ness. I still haven't even figured out what the hell he's been going on about that I HAVE said.

                I did mention that the "never seen before" (per news reports from the areas) congregation of sea life - including mammals - along the west coast from Alaska to southern California may not be a simple reflection of increased numbers from a few years' not-quite moratorium on wholesale slaughter, because average whale gestation periods range at between 10 and 18 months, most births are singular, dependence upon lactation ranges from 6 months to 2+ years, and the range for reaching sexual maturity is anywhere from 5 to 20 years. Oh... and the rather high infant mortality rate too, and unfortunately.

                IOW, whales don't reproduce fast enough to account for this kind of unprecedented showing, and even that doesn't address the rare deep-sea species that are part of that unprecedented showing. There are a number of possibilities for causation - including complex causation - in something like this. I asserted not a single one of them. Because nobody knows (which I also said, very clearly). All I did was mention that the actual reproductive rate of whales makes HIS causal assertion less than sufficient. Because it's less than sufficient.

                Mr. Flank has projected his own argumentative shortcomings onto me, then has descended straight to ad hominem personal insult because... um, because... that is his habit/'style' and/or purpose here? Hell if I know. Looks like a poser to me.

                There are three kinds of men. The one that learns by reading. The few who learn by observation. The rest of them have to pee on the electric fence for themselves. - Will Rogers

                by Joieau on Sat Mar 29, 2014 at 02:52:45 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site