At 03:35 AM 7/4/01, Jeroen wrote:
>At 00:51 4-7-01 +0100, Andy Crystall wrote:
>
>>Now look at the cancer rates arround a COAL fired power station..
>>over EIGHT times, in some cases, the national average. And that's
>>before we consider the CO� and other pollutants it spews...
>
>Maybe that's true, maybe it isn't. I don't know -- I don't have the data.
>
>Your statement looks like that old tactic: tone down a problem by pointing
>at an other, bigger problem. But that's not gonna work -- not on this list.
>
>The issue here is whether or not nuclear power plants are safe. Pointing
>at conventional power plants and say "the cancer rates around those are
>MUCH higher than around nuclear plants" does not proof that nuclear power
>plants are safe. It only points out that nuclear plants aren't the *only*
>problem.
If the concern about living near a nuclear power plant is that the
radiation emitted from the plant during its day-to-day operation increases
the risk of cancer for people living nearby, then, as posted here (IIRC by
Dan) several days ago, the radiation dose you get from the core _inside the
building housing the reactor_ -- not several miles from the plant, not just
outside the fence surrounding the plant, not somewhere on the grounds
inside the fence, not just outside the reactor building, but in the areas
where people work inside the reactor building itself, just on the other
side of a thick concrete wall from the reactor -- is less than the
radiation dose you receive from the decay of the potassium-40 atoms (which
comprise 0.0117% of all naturally-occurring potassium atoms) present in
your wife's body while she is sleeping next to you.
(I'm not even going to make one of my usual wisecracks about wearing lead
pajamas . . . )
-- Ronn! :)
