> Are you honestly arguing that dozens of mSv of radiation annually are safe?
Yes, I am (despite the downvotes). The average background dose at sea level is 4mSv/year. A chest CT scan is 7mSv. The EPA has declared that 50mSv/year is perfectly safe exposure for nuclear, and any other, workers.
> That big bad government is preventing people from doing what they want?
I shouldn't address this, but I feel the need to. Your snide "big bad government" crack implies you think I'm putting a political spin on my arguments. I'm not.
> 50mSv is approaching the level of guaranteed higher incidence of cancer
No, 50mSv is approaching the 100mSv threshold for conclusive evidence of increased cancer risk.
> If you lived in the exclusion zone, you'd be receiving that every single year for the rest of your, and your childrens' lives.
Please stop the vapid appeals to emotion. This is totally unscientific and the root cause of why the general public freaks out unnecessarily over radiation.
> Canada did a survey a few years ago of all their nuclear workers, at much lower levels of lifetime radiation (<7mSv), there were significantly higher levels of nearly every type of cancer.[1] Now imagine receiving multiples of that dosage every single year in perpetuity.
I will have to look at that paper in detail when I get home. My quick skim though shows you many have misread it. The dosages presented are annualized numbers, not "lifetime".[1]
> The relative lack of cancer deaths in Ukraine wasn't due to 'safe' fallout, but due to the fact that they just closed entire cities and forced everyone within a thousand square miles to leave.
And the relative lack of terrorist attacks in the past 14 years wasn't due to terrorist attacks being hard, but due to the TSA and full-body scanners. You can't prove causality for a lack of events based only on a correlation.
[1] "Doses from the individual workers' various types of exposures have been combined into 'annual doses,' which are the basis of calculations in this study."
> The EPA has declared that 50mSv/year is perfectly safe exposure for nuclear, and any other, workers.
So when a government agency declares a radiation dose safe, the measurement is immediately to be trusted, yet when it declares them unsafe and creates exclusion zones it is "overcautious"?
Yes, I am (despite the downvotes). The average background dose at sea level is 4mSv/year. A chest CT scan is 7mSv. The EPA has declared that 50mSv/year is perfectly safe exposure for nuclear, and any other, workers.
> That big bad government is preventing people from doing what they want?
I shouldn't address this, but I feel the need to. Your snide "big bad government" crack implies you think I'm putting a political spin on my arguments. I'm not.
> 50mSv is approaching the level of guaranteed higher incidence of cancer
No, 50mSv is approaching the 100mSv threshold for conclusive evidence of increased cancer risk.
> If you lived in the exclusion zone, you'd be receiving that every single year for the rest of your, and your childrens' lives.
Please stop the vapid appeals to emotion. This is totally unscientific and the root cause of why the general public freaks out unnecessarily over radiation.
> Canada did a survey a few years ago of all their nuclear workers, at much lower levels of lifetime radiation (<7mSv), there were significantly higher levels of nearly every type of cancer.[1] Now imagine receiving multiples of that dosage every single year in perpetuity.
I will have to look at that paper in detail when I get home. My quick skim though shows you many have misread it. The dosages presented are annualized numbers, not "lifetime".[1]
> The relative lack of cancer deaths in Ukraine wasn't due to 'safe' fallout, but due to the fact that they just closed entire cities and forced everyone within a thousand square miles to leave.
And the relative lack of terrorist attacks in the past 14 years wasn't due to terrorist attacks being hard, but due to the TSA and full-body scanners. You can't prove causality for a lack of events based only on a correlation.
[1] "Doses from the individual workers' various types of exposures have been combined into 'annual doses,' which are the basis of calculations in this study."