[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Of course I'm serious. After all, you claim that the
> radiation risk from me is greater than the radiation
> risk from nuclear power.
>
That's not what he claimed. He claimed that the
radiation *output* from you was greater than the radiation
*output* from a nuclear power plant.
> If the radiation risk from nuclear power is so much less,
> then why are the safety measures so extremely more strict?
> Logic dictates that higher risk requires more
> safety measures, not less.
>
The inverse is true: since the safety measures are extremely
strict, then the output radiation is very small
I doubt that the relationship between radiation risk and safety measures is
so clear cut in either direction. This has nothing to do with logic. The
radiation output from an individual is something we have to live with. We
cannot ban human contact nor do we have any control over natural background
radiation. This I think was Dan's point. That the amount of radiation
produced by a well functioning plant is not risk. The radiation standards
are meant to prevent disasters big and small where the nuclear plant is
operating incorrectly leading to chronic low level radiation leakage and
acute massive emergencies (e.g.Chernobyl). My personal concerns with
Nuclear power lie in my belief that disasters (small chronic and big acute)
are hard to avoid. Human error, politics and economic factors all work
against safe management (cheaper workers, cheaper equipment, failure to
replace old equipment etc.).
