This fucking cringe right here
Also hippie hate thread
>>7750433
There isn't any save level of radiation. Every gamma ray can kill.
Nuke shills plz leave
It just needs a lot of streamlining.
>>7750442
You do realize there are more types of radiation than just gamma rays, right?
>>7750442
You serious m8 ?
>>7750442
wut
>>7750442
There isn't any save level of traffic. Every car can kill.
Transport shills plz leave
>>7750479
>There isn't any save level of traffic. Every car can kill.
Exactly, you should always look both ways before crossing even if the street looks empty.
>>7750481
In the context of nuclear production there's like, 3.
And the car example earlier makes yours seem even more stupid. If more people understood radiation instead of being OMG MUH GAMMER RAYES and that the regulation amount of maximum rad exposure is about 8 times below the amount actually needed to significantly affect humans, this topic probably wouldn't exist.
>>7750481
What a fucking bullshit comparison.
It's like playing Russian roulette with a gun that has a billion chambers and only one is loaded and each bullet is smaller than the size of a pea.
>>7750490
>In the context of nuclear production there's like, 3.
You forgot neutronic
>>7750490
>radiation stops interacting with matter below a given level of particles
Wrong
>>7750494
Countless people get cancer every year from background radiation. There is no safe limit.
>>7750513
Citation, proof?
People who study actual sceinces like physics or chemistry knows there is a merit to this.
Scientists know jackshit about the actual mechanisms that radiation follows in the body, it is better to assume that they are harmful considering the fragile nature of cells and the ease of mutation leading to cancer. You only need one mutant cell, let's not make it easy
>>7750513
What does "significant" mean?
>>775052
Stfu, we know what we're talking about even if you don't.
>>7750516
Proof of cause please.
>shilling for fission
>not shilling for fusion, technology thats literally right around the corner ready to be used and revolutionize energy production
nice one guys. fission is great and all, but why spend money developing more fission technology when fusion is clearly better.
>>7750484
but if it looks empty it most mean that you have already looked.
>>7750516
So we just need to stop the big bang from ever happening to make existence as clean of radiation as possible.
>>7750442
NO.
>>7750516
Take radiator out of car! it can hurt you. PLEASE HURRY! :(
>>7750556
>Fusion
>Soon
pick one
At the rate current fusion projects (ITER etc) are going, in any realistic timescale fission is far more relevant.
>>7750665
CIA already has it.
Would it be possible to use fusion technology to make a slow fusion bomb? A thing that sits in an area and slowly burns everything around it?
>>7750682
>Source?
My dog.
>>7750442
Literally true but there are things that add to radiation levels so little that you get hundreds of times greater doses just from spending a day outside.
Any single bit could be the one that gives you cancer... But any given mosquito could be the one to give your malaria, any given car could be the one that runs you over, etc.
>>7750442
Is background radiation the true reason behind mortality?
>>7750516
How can you study this if everyone is getting background radiation? Where is the fucking control?
>>7750684
That's exactly how nuclear weapons worked in science fiction before nukes were invented for real.
>>7750433
On the contrary, higher radiation exposure can be a good to a thing to a certain extent. Areas with higher background radiation such as Iran have lower occurrences of cancer.
More small doses of radiation => your body is stronger against cancer, or something like that.
>>7750580
You can't be sure unless you observe directly. Death by quantum car.
I'm pro-nuclear as all energy production is dangerous aside from renewables that don't even come close to matching our energy needs right now. That being said, very rigerous prceedures must be put in place to stop shit like this happening:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Triangle_of_death_%28Italy%29
>>7750706
>Any single bit could be the one that gives you cancer... But any given mosquito could be the one to give your malaria, any given car could be the one that runs you over, etc.
Which is why you should always wear protection and not play on the highway
>>7750433
>ctrl+f
>Linear no-threshold model
>No results
Fuck you /sci/. Linear no-threshold model states that there is no safe lower limit (save 0 Sv) on radiation exposure, just that you're less likely to develop cancer at lower limits. What >>7750442 said is true, however unless you're planning to live the rest of your life in a thick lead box then just living (far away from any "artificial" source) gives you a small chance of developing cancer.
With that said, OP's pic is still retarded and I'm fully pro-nuclear.
last month a day i found a website wich Claims that cigarettes are not a source of cancer but the Gouvernement want that we beleave this because all cancer is from the nuclear testings
but the go further
they say cigarets prevent cancer
.
.
but i think a source of cancer is cigarets AND nuklear testing because the plant collects radioaktive elements from the ground
>>7750730
more likely it's oxygen poisoning
>>7750442
you speak right, science man
>>7750433
The [US National Academy of Sciences] committee has concluded that there is no compelling evidence to indicate a dose threshold below which the risk of tumor induction is zero.
http://www.nap.edu/read/11340/chapter/2
Lrn2ionising-radiation, Cowboy
>>7750433
The power is useful and clears road traffic and smog problems as well as saving gas resources.
although there is a safe level of radiation the leftover waste from plants and the disasters that have happened mean that nuclear plants are a very bad idea. also if get hit by a disaster/ somebody is an idiot and tries to melt the reactor down they can be virtually impossible to shut the fuck down.
>>7750748
Mathematics and extrapolation
>>7750433
>>7750748
Background radiation is different in different areas.
>there is no safe level of radiation
What is the sun?
>>7750433
But the sign is correct though.
The only autist here is you anon for posting this.
>>7750433
>/Sci/
>S
>>7750642
>LOL I already have herpes so let's just fuck this heroin whore without condom cuz yolo
>>7750433
Anti nuclear activists are strangely focused on the risk of the plants running haywire, while they should be more concerned with the uranium mining and waste deposition stages. Is it just that the threat of a chernobyl-level catastrophe is that much more marketable than the idea of our ancestors mining nuclear waste pods for copper and dying like retards?
>>7754914
Sure, go hang out in space and bathe in its rays. Totally safe.
>>7750511
I think he meant to say that it's safe to dismiss alpha radiation, unless an alpha-emitting radionuclide is ingested.
>>7756909
Sensationalism sells. Logic, not so much.
>>7750650
My favorite response.
>>7750442
Blindness shill plz leave
>>7754114
>Coal power plant has higher dosage than nuclear one
Oh wow, someone pls explain.
>>7753061
lol?
>>7752934
>hormesis
still a hypothesis, lad. There's no proof that dosing will up your chance of not getting cancer or living longer.
>>7757977
burning coal produces a ridiculous amount of fly ash, which when compacted together has a really high level of radioactive particles.
>>7757977
Because there's small traces of radioactive stuff in coal, not enough that you're going to get cancer from keeping a piece of coal in your pocket but enough to be measurable when you take into account all the coal that goes through a coal power plant in a year. Whereas nuclear plants use a relatively small amount of uranium, and specific measures are taken to contain the radiation both in the running reactor and in stored nuclear waste. And while the coolant running through the reactor core does pick up some short-lived radioactivity, it's not released into the atmosphere the way coal power plants do with their exhaust.
>>7750433
I'm pro-nuclear but our safety measures need to be far, FAR better than they are now.
is going for nuke eng. a bad idea?
>>7758777
>any amount of radiaiton can kill you technically.
literally not true
shit b8/m8
You are exposed to ionizing radiation every day.
Solar/Comic radiation, especially if you fly.
The anti matter in Bananas.
Radon gas from basements and crawl spaces.
Uranium exists naturally in almost everything.
There is no safe level of radiation, but the ambient radiation levels are acceptable. Nuclear power is only acceptable if the production of electricity outweighs the increased cost of treating cancer patients.
>>7750544
A high school biology textbook
>>7759249
>It exists, so it's not bad for you.
>>7759260
>hormesis
BABY KILLING NEUTRONS
YOU DON'T NEED THAT RADIATION
>>7758765
Do you want to know the nit and gritty or know how to operate a nuclear plant, if operate the Navy is your best bet.
>>7758634
Which exact areas need improvement?
>>7750442
Bruv. visible light is literally radiation. Fucking radio waves coming out of your computer is radiation.
Go watch a khan academy video or something.
>>7754114
This is complete bullshit, that chart is a photoshop of an xkcd chart that was comparing amounts of money (company nets, nations' GDP, etc)
>>7750433
Ohh noes, visible light is ionizing radiation.
Whelp, safe at mom's basement. Fucking hippies.
>>7759416
no you doofus you got it all wrong, radio waves come out of your radio, it's what we hear man, our ears hear radio waves and our eyes see light waves, maan
>>7759423
>that chart is a photoshop of an xkcd chart that was comparing amounts of money
You're an idiot.
https://xkcd.com/radiation/
>>7758634
Could you please elaborate? Maybe state some specific safety measures that you think we need to improve.
>>7758765
I'm not any authority on the subject, but as far as I understand it, Germany planned to phase out its nuclear reactors by 2022 due to the disaster at Fukushima Daiichi. China, Russia, the UK, India, and South Korea are planning an expansion of nuclear reactors. And the U.S. had been planning to expand, but will likely see less than a handful come online in the coming years. Also, most of the reactors in the U.S. are on the east coast. This is kind of dated info, so I don't know if any of it has changed.
Also, can we actually have an intelligent conversation on reasons why you support or oppose nuclear power? Preferably with citations for any statistics and claims you make. I just got on this board, so I may be mistaken, but I thought that was what this board was supposed to be about.
>>7750433
that's why you should stay in your basement and kill yourself - humans emit radiation, therefore by meeting with others you endanger them.
Hate hippies?
Steenking hippies
Nasty heepies
>>7756909
Anti-nuclear sorts are paid to want NOTHING nuclear, not just clean/safe nuclear.
>>7759254
What studies, if any, have ever found increases in cancer in the vicinity of well run nuclear power plants?
![maxresdefault[5].jpg](https://i.imgur.com/WMScs6M.jpg "maxresdefault[5].jpg")
>>7754114
> power plants cause the radiation damage as eating a banana
Look what bananas can do to you !
>>7760185
I'd be curious to find out if there are any disappeared scientists who attempted this.
Like the Star Wars scientists!!!!
>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GEC-Marconi_scientist_deaths_conspiracy_theory
Nuclear power is better than coal for sure. Climate change is a far greater trouble than nuclear power.
>>7760204
A real life brahmin.
>>7760612
the problem with coal is fucking pollution
not mythical "climate change"
>>7760185
i doubt any did, because the increase in radiation intensity is absolutely minimal.
futhermore it is speculated that minimal increase of background radiation might actually be beneficial:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radiation_hormesis
>>7760708
Climate change is CAUSED BY pollution.
>>7759279
BAN LOW STABILITY ASSAULT PARTICLES.
