Radiation is Safe Within Limits – Robert Hargraves
Dr. Robert Hargraves recently gave a talk to a chapter of the American Nuclear Society in New York. He recorded the talk and synchronized his words with the slides. It is quite informative.
Hargraves should be complimented and encouraged to keep working on his presentation, practicing the delivery and refining the message. This should become the next Inconvenient Truth in terms of reaching a wide audience.
In terms of improving the prosperity of our human society, it should have far wider effects than that politically-motivated slide show.
Hargraves is a retired technologist motivated by spreading truth and understanding about radiation health effects and the beneficial use of nuclear energy. He is not a politician hoping to win election as President of the United States. He is not even an ex-politician seeking personal wealth by capitalizing on his political and NGO connections.
On a related note, I recommend that you read Meredith Angwin’s post at Yes Vermont Yankee titled “No Safe Dose” is Bad Science: Guest Post by Howard Shaffer. It builds off of and enriches a discussion that started here on Atomic Insights a couple of days ago.
Hargraves is right but you open yourself up to skepticism and derision from get-go when you start off saying “Within Limits.” Who in public knows what they are? Does limits mean once you cross that thin line you’re automatically a goner?? Who wants that?? Lots of bad things have murky limits the public understands like not sniffing too much bleach! Don’t let them start guessing radiation! Worst, don’t let Greens define what for you! Bad title, trust me!
The radium dial painters who got cumulative doses of 10 gray or more had a significantly higher probability for getting a cancer in the face. Around 2000 dial painters had exposures of less than 10 gray;. none got the radiation induced cancer. This shows that radiation is accumulative and there is a limit, but the dose is high. Wade Allison defines a conservative limit when he suggests a lifetime total dose not to exceed 5 gray. Recently part of my body received 66 gray of x-ray radiation. I have likely prevented a recurrence of prostate cancer, but in getting that radiation I have a small increased risk of a secondary radiation induced cancer. If radiation does induce a cancer it will not likely happen for more than a decade. At age 79 I am not loosing sleep over it.
at the risk of stating the obvious — I wanted to make sure everyone knew about this series of videos put out by the Canadian Nuclear Society for the purpose of educating airline pilots about the relative risks of radiation exposure due to their occupation.
Being new to the Nuclear Energy opportunity myself, I found this series of videos extremely helpful and easy to follow. I think this series would work well in tandem with the Hargraves lecture (and pamphlet) when introducing the LNT concept to open-minded skeptics.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=stPu1IefdCc
Its an outstanding contribution and I would be even more aggressive. Radiation is Energy. We need this technology.
Also Rod id mention to your new twitter friend that said :
Brian Daniel @BrianWithCheese · Wind farming and solar panels don’t create barrels of waste that have to be buried in leak- proof containers to prevent spreading toxins
REALLY??? Lets see:
state records show the 17 companies, which had 44 manufacturing facilities in California, produced 46.5 million pounds of sludge and contaminated water from 2007 through the first half of 2011.( https://news.yahoo.com/solar-industry-grapples-hazardous-wastes-184714679.html )
There are also 41 companies and only 17 reported the waste. These wastes include toxins and carcinogens with NO half life. They are toxic forever.
As for the wind industry and its dependence on rare earths:
“Every ton of rare earth produced, generates approximately 8.5 kilograms (18.7 lbs) of fluorine and 13 kilograms (28.7 lbs) of dust; and using concentrated sulfuric acid high temperature calcination techniques to produce approximately one ton of calcined rare earth ore generates 9,600 to 12,000 cubic meters (339,021 to 423,776 cubic feet) of waste gas containing dust concentrate, hydrofluoric acid, sulfur dioxide, and sulfuric acid, approximately 75 cubic meters (2,649 cubic feet) of acidic wastewater, and about one ton of radioactive waste residue (containing water).” ( http://fmso.leavenworth.army.mil/documents/rareearth.pdf )
Ive seen reports that the volume of radioactive waste alone per year out paces the entire US output of recyclable spent fuel per year, and thats a total insignificant non issue compared to the other contaminants produced in rare earth production.
Oh and while im a bit off topic and irritated by misinformed “environmentalists” its been revealed that a Greenpeace top executive (and frequent anti nuke commenter) has been commuting by air for years to work:
“The head of Greenpeace UK has defended the need for one of the environmental group’s top executives to fly to work several times a month, and apologised to supporters for a mistake that saw a member of its finance team lose £3m on currency markets.” ( http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2014/jun/23/greenpeace-defends-top-executive-flying-to-work )
I think now the “Green” in “Greenpeace” wasn’t about what everyone was thinking it was about.
Folks I know are surprised when I tell them that it’s time to stop giving the motivations of the environmental NGOs the benefit of the doubt and start examining their real motives. They’re not working to make things better for humanity the way the popular culture seems to assume. I’m hoping to get this meme some traction. Once we break the inherent trust that society has for ENGOs fixing the nuclear propaganda situation will be easier.
An excellent explanation of the Fear Factor regarding radiation. Totally fact based and not conjecture. Very useful. Will relink on Facebook and my email contacts.
David