On 22/02/2021 11:23, T i m wrote:
On 21 Feb 2021 22:40:00 GMT, Tim Streater
wrote:

On 19 Feb 2021 at 12:59:55 GMT, T i m wrote:

Except reactors 'built to generate electricity' *have* gone wrong or
been broken and have spewed very long living pollution across the
world.

A certain amount of radioactive material has been spread, and that only by one
reactor.

I might only need 'one'.

If it has a short half life, then it's already gone, years ago,
decayed to safer stuff. If it has a long half life, it's not that dangerous
anyway.

I believe they were (are) testing welsh lamb for 30 years after
Chernobyl and still often rejecting those grazing on the higher levels
for being over the acceptable levels for radioactivity. How much
further away and how much longer lasting does it have to be before you
might start to consider the risk being greater than alternatives that
do spread the consequences anything like as far and as so long?

And we *are* phasing out many other polluting energy generation forms
for that exact reason.

Potassium-40, for example, causes 4300 radioactive decays in your body
every second.

Interesting (?)

You overlook that there is significant radioactive material all around us,

I do(?) ... and you know that how?

even more so in places like Dartmoor.

And how many people live on Dartmoor?

You also overlook that life has been
dealing with radiation since the beginning of life on Earth,

Again, I have have I?

and has developed
mechanisms to mitigate the effects of it.

Until the levels are greater than those typical 'background' levels
and then we die or are made very ill by it?

Why do we sign a disclaimer when having any 'radioactive' form of
medical process and have to read the section about 'increased risk'
(when having a medical procedure that is trying to make us *better*)?

The graph of harm due to radiation against levels of radiation was
produced from data gathered from Hiroshima and Nagasaki. That gave a
pretty straight line and because it did not have any data down to zero,
it was simply extended there. Ever since, it has been used to determine
what levels are harmful and to set industry limits.

More recent research (in the last 5 years) has shown that the risks are
not linear, due to the organisms having developed to cope with low
levels and it is now thought that the existing industrial limits may be
up to a 1000x tighter than they need to be.

The industry (and by extension the public paying for it) are therefore
paying massively over the odds to reduce radiation to unnecessarily low
levels, people are far more worried about radiation than they need to be
and existing contamination is being considered harmful and causing
monitoring and restrictions when they are likely totally unnecessary.