Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News Editorials & Other Articles General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search
 

RC

(25,592 posts)
19. You are trying to confuse the issue.
Tue Nov 19, 2013, 09:11 AM
Nov 2013

Conflating high energy, nuclear radiation i.e.,gamma radiation, with light and other radio waves? Really? Gamma rays may be considered electromagnetic radiation, but they sure do not behave like radio waves or light,
The radiation we are talking about here is radioactivity, of the type some here are overly paranoid about. Yeah that radiation. And yes, that type of radiation, is "hard radiation" and that does go in a straight line. At least until it hits a nucleus of an atom and is ether absorbed or it knocks something out.
Isotopes are elements, atoms, that differ from the "normal" elements only by the number of neutrons it has. Isotopes behave like the chemical elements they are. The radiation from the isotopes does go in a straight line. The isotopes themselves are the source of the radioactivity, not the radiation itself.
Radiation from a nuclear power plant? "Skyshine"? A term taken for astronomy for light pollution from a city? Really? There is more radiation radioactivity from a coal burning plant. Or granite counter tops, or even common bricks, than from your run of the mill nuclear power plant. And don't forget the potassium in the common banana. And while we are on the subject, did you know 3 feet of earth will stop most gamma radiation? So those mountains will shield radioactivity from Fukushima.
No wonder some people are paranoid and ignorant about nuclear power. They do not understand enough high school physics to know what they are talking about.

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

TEPCO risks all at Fukushima [View all] unhappycamper Nov 2013 OP
We can hope madokie Nov 2013 #1
The quote from the article that makes you go WTF! Lochloosa Nov 2013 #2
Unless she has a starship and an Earthlike planet to fly to... caraher Nov 2013 #8
Hyperbole to make a point pscot Nov 2013 #12
Seems closer to a non sequitur than hyperbole caraher Nov 2013 #13
she probably means moving them deep into the southern hemisphere, like Australia. n/t CRH Nov 2013 #16
If I understand what the "worst case scenario" involves, I'm not sure any place will be safe. Lochloosa Nov 2013 #17
The Forgotten Legacy of the Banqiao Dam Collapse RC Nov 2013 #3
It's not about how many have been killed to date. It's about the catastrophic consequences of a magical thyme Nov 2013 #4
171,000 people dead is not a catastrophic consequence? RC Nov 2013 #6
People can't care about a disaster unless it is the greatest of all time? kristopher Nov 2013 #7
Denigrating the messenger, instead of disproving the facts I provided? RC Nov 2013 #9
ROFLMAO kristopher Nov 2013 #11
Maybe to you it sounds dumb. But what was wrong with what I stated? RC Nov 2013 #14
What's wrong? Aside from the point that you don't understand the meaning of 'values'? kristopher Nov 2013 #15
No, radiation does NOT go in a straight line. bananas Nov 2013 #18
You are trying to confuse the issue. RC Nov 2013 #19
1.1 The Skyshine Problem bananas Nov 2013 #21
google "site:nrc.gov skyshine" - get "About 1,960 results" bananas Nov 2013 #23
Try reading them. FBaggins Nov 2013 #25
How is that any less relevant kristopher Nov 2013 #26
Simple FBaggins Nov 2013 #28
I didn't make any errors. bananas Nov 2013 #32
Don't be silly... Of course you did FBaggins Nov 2013 #34
SAME MISTAKE - basically NOT UNDERSTANDING the Physics. PamW Nov 2013 #36
100% WRONG!!! PamW Nov 2013 #20
1.1 The Skyshine Problem bananas Nov 2013 #22
Sorry... no. FBaggins Nov 2013 #24
More STUPIDITY from Arnie Gunderson???? PamW Nov 2013 #27
Well... to be fair to Arnie... FBaggins Nov 2013 #29
PamW is 100% WRONG!!! bananas Nov 2013 #30
Of course it was Arnie FBaggins Nov 2013 #31
No, it was by Michael S. Bassett, and it was written in the 1980's. bananas Nov 2013 #33
Lol... oh come on. FBaggins Nov 2013 #35
Physicists support nuclear power by 98% PamW Nov 2013 #37
I did not say that 170,000 is not a catastrophe. magical thyme Nov 2013 #10
They haven't had it right so far, they had better be right now. Where are these rods going? marble falls Nov 2013 #5
Latest Discussions»Issue Forums»Environment & Energy»TEPCO risks all at Fukush...»Reply #19