On Mon, 17 Jul 2006 10:23:22 +0100, The Natural Philosopher
wrote:

Mark wrote:
Yes. I was thinking the whole way through that it must be sponsored
by nulabour. I was worried that they referred to "Radiation" as if
"it" was all the same. There are at least three different types (If I
remember my A level Physics correctly ;-), all of which have different
effects.

You mean alpha, beta and gamma?

Yes.

From memory at least one of those is stopped very easily by almost any
layer of anything.

Yes. For example the human body is very good at absorbing and hence
stopping alpha radiation. This process can damage the aforementioned
body.

If true, it propbaly means that there is no nuclear waste problem at all.

Low level waste could be dumped in landfills with no real problem.

Not necessarily true. See above.

I think you need to delve more into the science here.

Agreed. I think I was trying to suggest that in my previous post.

For example, plutonium and uranium are as likely to be dangerous as
metals in themselves as radioactive emitters. They are also the items
that are = with americum - responsible for the long time delay problems.

Almost all other secondary products - iodine, caesium etc - decay within
20-30 years.

And maybe they would be all the more dangerous during this time frame?

The largest amount of low level waste is simply contaminated clothing
etc containing not the actual fuel rods or products therefrom, but
simply material that has been irradiated and has some residual
radioactivity in it.

IF low level radiation exposure is relatively benign, this could simply
be buried for a while.

If this can be proved to be so.

You must have a very large garden ;-)

Not really. I was being a little humorous.. But there isn't a huge
amount of waste tons wise from the power stations...

Hence the ;-)

Definitely. It takes more than one "science" program to make me be
willing to be exposed to low level radiation.

But you always have been. We are all exposed to low level radiation all
the time. The earth itself is a huge nuclear reactor, and cosmic
radiation comes in all the time. Life has developed in this environment,
and it would be strange if it could not cope with it.

I should have phrased this point more carefully maybe:
"... willing to be exposed to _more_ low level radiation ..."

The one point that was made by the program, that is incontrovertibly
valid, is that no data for low continuous radiation exists, apart from
the ones cited.,

Namely that we know that above a certain threshold, cancer happens..we
know that at a normal background level, it doesn't. Bombs and normal
life give us those points on the graph.

Down low, the only data is from areas with naturally high background
levels, which show no extra cancer rates, or airline staff, who don't
either.

But, in the program, there is no mention of the type of radiation
these studies measured. Statistics based on one type of radiation
could have no bearing on the effects of a different type.

IIRC there is SOME evidence that RADON - an inhalable gas fund all over
dartmoor etc, has some correlation to lung cancer, but its buy no means
a sure thing.

I would not wish to live in an area with high radon gas.

The biggest problem is that rational debate is hampered by emotional
response that compare nuclear power with nuclear weapons. Which is a
sane as comparing a domestic oil boiler with a fuel-air bomb..and would
see every bag of flour taken off the shelves as a 'dangerous explosive'
(ever made a flour bomb? Try it!)

Most debates are hampered by irrational arguments IMHO.

Do you think that this one can be allowed to remain that way?

No. Although I don't know how this could be stopped in pratice. I was
just pointing out that fact. The current political culture of spin
and the media culture of the tabloids are not doing anything to help
cool and rational debate.

In recent times I cannot think of any major national issue that has
been debated in a factual manner. Can you?

Mark