> and since you asked, you'll have to endulge the full explanation
That's fine.
And I read your explanation, and while it is coherent, I don't agree with it, and I find it to be fear based, not science based.
Of all pollutions radiation is by far the easiest to detect and track (which is why people hate it so much - it's very easy to find). Other types of pollution are much harder to track, so less is made known about them, and they get less attention - but they cause more damage!
And that's in a nutshell my position: Other pollution is worse. I accept that there will always be some pollution, and I seek the best.
I like that we can find radiation so easily: It means we can clean it when necessary. Other pollutions can't be found so easily, so no one is told when they get exposed to it. Since they are never told, they never worry - but it still causes damage!
I do my best to keep track of other pollutions, I subscribe to air quality alerts. If radiation was released in amounts that cause the exact same damage as the bad air, you could bet people would be screaming. Yet, non-radiation pollutions (mostly) get a pass unless they get really bad.
I tell people that the air quality is bad today and I get mocked, or more often just indifference. Do people not care? I should tell people there is lots of radiation in the air instead..... :)
> At minimum, it always carries a risk of mucking with your DNA or giving you a higher chance of cancer down the road (we have differed on how "horrifying" this prospect is, before).
You misunderstood me. Cancer is bad - my point was that nuclear power is less likely to cause cancer in both, the general public, and the miners. So nuclear power is not horrifying - it's a blessing since it causes less cancer.
Pollution from other energy sources also causes cancer, and causes more of it than nuclear power. Nuclear power gets the headlines, sure, but the day to day poison is everything else.
> Why is it "because of people like [me]"?
When I said "people like" I meant "people opposed to nuclear power", which you are (seem to be), and therefor you are like them.
> Maybe it's time for me to get off your lawn?
If it was just you then fine. But it's a lot more people than just you, and most of them have an even worse fear/knowledge ratio than you, and are impossible to argue with.
> Other types of pollution are much harder to track
I was trying to explain to you why I find radioactive pollution unacceptable, replying by telling me that there are worse types of pollution does not really add to the discussion.
You seem hell-bent on making this discussion into one about choosing the lesser evil. But the article is about the exact opposite - it's about getting out of that cycle and investing in a true alternative.
> Pollution from other energy sources also causes cancer, and causes more of it than nuclear power. Nuclear power gets the headlines, sure, but the day to day poison is everything else.
I find wind turbines to cause very little cancer.
> When I said "people like" I meant "people opposed to nuclear power", which you are (seem to be), and therefor you are like them.
No, I understand that, but why do you want them off your lawn? By their opposition to nuclear they automatically made the air worse and cause pollution action days? Strikes me as a tad simplistic.
That's fine.
And I read your explanation, and while it is coherent, I don't agree with it, and I find it to be fear based, not science based.
Of all pollutions radiation is by far the easiest to detect and track (which is why people hate it so much - it's very easy to find). Other types of pollution are much harder to track, so less is made known about them, and they get less attention - but they cause more damage!
And that's in a nutshell my position: Other pollution is worse. I accept that there will always be some pollution, and I seek the best.
I like that we can find radiation so easily: It means we can clean it when necessary. Other pollutions can't be found so easily, so no one is told when they get exposed to it. Since they are never told, they never worry - but it still causes damage!
I do my best to keep track of other pollutions, I subscribe to air quality alerts. If radiation was released in amounts that cause the exact same damage as the bad air, you could bet people would be screaming. Yet, non-radiation pollutions (mostly) get a pass unless they get really bad.
I tell people that the air quality is bad today and I get mocked, or more often just indifference. Do people not care? I should tell people there is lots of radiation in the air instead..... :)
> At minimum, it always carries a risk of mucking with your DNA or giving you a higher chance of cancer down the road (we have differed on how "horrifying" this prospect is, before).
You misunderstood me. Cancer is bad - my point was that nuclear power is less likely to cause cancer in both, the general public, and the miners. So nuclear power is not horrifying - it's a blessing since it causes less cancer.
Pollution from other energy sources also causes cancer, and causes more of it than nuclear power. Nuclear power gets the headlines, sure, but the day to day poison is everything else.
> Why is it "because of people like [me]"?
When I said "people like" I meant "people opposed to nuclear power", which you are (seem to be), and therefor you are like them.
> Maybe it's time for me to get off your lawn?
If it was just you then fine. But it's a lot more people than just you, and most of them have an even worse fear/knowledge ratio than you, and are impossible to argue with.