X-Message-Number: 15070
Date: Sun, 3 Dec 2000 14:32:13 EST
Subject: radiation

In a message dated 12/3/00 4:01:32 AM Central Standard Time, 

<< What are you talking about here?  As far as I know there is a linear 
 response by organisms to developing cancers and other life-threatening 
 problems when exposed to increasing amounts of radiation.  >>

  There may or may not be a threshold effect. But the point is that nuclear 
reactors release 100-400 (100 for anthracite, 400 for bituminous) times less 
radiation into the environment than coal power plants per kilowatt generated. 
(There is polonium, etc. in coal.) So if you want a lower radiation dose, you 
try to get away from coal.  I'm sure you know this from your freshman 
chemistry classes, so quit pulling my leg. Coal is not human-friendly (except 
possibly for the climate effects of the CO2 it releases.)

>we should be not be changing climates

  We don't have a choice about the climate changing; it changes all the time. 
But we might have the ability to delay the Final Ice Age long enough to build 
human civilization into a force that brings life to dead planets.... you'll 
notice that there are lots of nice pristine, non-polluted planets in this 
system and they are all DEAD. (Maybe not the ice moons at their cores, but we 
don't know.)

  The funny thing is that thirty years ago it was politically fashionable to 
worry about Ice Ages, but the conventional "cure" was the same; shut down all 
the evil factories (especially the aircraft factories... contrails really do 
have a net cooling effect), and destroy human civilization before it "changes 
the planet".

Rate This Message: http://www.cryonet.org/cgi-bin/rate.cgi?msg=15070