tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7597656451205429515.post5083175031520129483..comments2024-02-16T17:52:44.944-06:00Comments on The Nuclear Green Revolution: Radioactive Radon in the home, natural gas, and the New York TimesCharles Bartonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01125297013064527425noreply@blogger.comBlogger3125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7597656451205429515.post-57003430973841384132012-05-09T12:17:34.328-05:002012-05-09T12:17:34.328-05:00really !!! this was very interesting. using natura...really !!! this was very interesting. using natural gas would be nice. aside from conserving our natural resources it helps us adapt during climate change. thanks for the information<br /><a href="http://flogistix.com/" rel="nofollow">natural gas heaters</a>Flogistixhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11393574053005122024noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7597656451205429515.post-55436096982431795072011-06-09T18:41:24.152-05:002011-06-09T18:41:24.152-05:00This is certainly an entertaining one! One can re...This is certainly an entertaining one! One can reasonably argue that all the present and future radiation from Fukushima has been more than compensated for by the elimination of oil or gas production which would otherwise have been necessary to produce the electricity provided by the plant. One wonders how much extra radiation can be attributed to the substitution of oil and gas generation for the other nukes taken off line as a precaution!!Johnnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7597656451205429515.post-17142399438491043522011-02-28T22:00:05.113-06:002011-02-28T22:00:05.113-06:00Charles -
I think this issue is complex. I beli...Charles - <br /><br />I think this issue is complex. I believe that after researching the LNT hypothesis versus the hormesis hypothesis, Bernard Cohen theorized that perhaps radon might, on an overall basis, i.e., for most (perhaps not for all - - can't remember) exposed people, be protective due to the immune response triggered. Related statements that Mr. Cohen made may have been, in part, tongue-in-cheek - - meant to challenge anti-nuclear thinking through a little bit of shock. <br /><br />My guess is that triggering a response (through relatively low-level radiation exposures) that is ultimately beneficial, though it may not be what happens for everyone, may well happen for most. This makes the issue complex. <br /><br />Low level radiation exposures may function (although in a much less planned fashion) like interventions that are undertaken consciously in order to challenge the immune system with the goal of provoking an immune reaction that is ultimately protective. <br /><br />Vaccines are illustrative. The general consensus of informed scientists is that vaccines are beneficial for most, even though they harmful for some. The MMR (Measles, Mumps, Rubella) vaccine, for example, has a risk of adverse reaction of < 1 in 1 million. The risk of serious complications from the measles, by way of contrast, is about 1 in 1000. <br /><br />Maybe low levels of radiation exposure are the same - - ultimately helpful for most, most of the time, while simultaneously being harmful to some, most of the time. <br /><br />Though there can be real damage from radioactivity, even low levels, this does not make radiation unique. There is real damage from lots of things, and from low levels. Without real damage sufficient to challenge the immune system, e.g., from a vaccine, there will not be a forceful (and ultimately protective) immune system response. Again, for most. <br /><br />Colloquially, "what doesn't kill most makes most stronger." But not everyone. Ergo, in my view, the LNT hypothesis, though perhaps based on accurate lab results, may be woefully incomplete and ultimately misleading, if one values general human welfare. <br /><br />Benefits gained from heightened immune response triggered by the challenge radon poses to the immune system might be the reason that Europeans intentionally exposed themselves to radon by "taking the waters," at spas, under the notion that this would help fight disease. Such exposure amounted to intentionally, though probably unconsciously, seeking out exposure to radioactivity in order to trigger an immune system response that was, ultimately, protective (for many). Maybe it did help fight disease among many of those exposed because it energized the immune system. <br /><br />I think that highlighting the hypocrisy, as you have done, is valuable. If the people who ostensibly oppose nuclear energy are truly motivated by concerns over radiation exposure, they would oppose coal fired generation 100x as much as they oppose nuclear, and oppose natural gas more than they oppose nuclear. This is obviously not the case. <br /><br />Radiation is just a handy thing to cite as an issue with nuclear energy, even though higher radiation exposures are associated with other energy sources. It is just something to "say against nuclear." <br /><br />Most nuclear opponents embrace natural gas because its flexibility can compensate for the intermittence of wind and solar or other intermittent alternatives, which they are desperate to posit as a sufficient alternative to nuclear - - you just need to add some "natural" gas. <br /><br />In other words, methane (natural gas) is good because it helps fight nuclear. Nothing more is needed. Because it helps "fight nuclear," methane's problems must be ignored or re-classified.Frank Jablonskihttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13308455058643394103noreply@blogger.com