Reply #179: so we're accepting what the ERA says now? [View All]

i assume you mean EPA, anyhow

You say

As the half life of stontium 90 is 28 years - it remains in the environment and can travel in water and air and soil and gets into the food chain and wildlife.

If that is okay with you then there is very little to debate.

I, on the other hand, consider it an extreme danger.


ok, fair enough, the EPA lists as the radiation dose for all isotopes, including strontium-90, released from commercial power plants as 0.009 mrem/year.

you consider that to be an extreme danger.

so what do you consider exposure to naturally-occuring radon (which is also readily internalized into one's body), to which the average exposure is 200 mrem/year or 22,222 times higher than nuclear power plant-released radiation, to be?

i am interested in what adjective you will chose to use in describing something 22,222 time worse than "extreme" - perhaps hyper-wacky-mega-extreme? no, not even that's good enough, - i'll leave this one to the wordsmiths among us.

anyhow, i'm still waiting for the molecular explanation of how man-made radiation is more dangerous than naturally-occurring radiation. here's a hint - a detailed explanation of how ionizing-type radiation interacts with biological molecules is given at (and succeeding pages linked thereat):

http://www.photobiology.com/educational/len/index.htm

please describe what aspects of this discussion are incorrect, which they would need to be to support your oft-repeated, but never supported premise that there is something especially dangerous about man-made radiation.