X-Message-Number: 15070 From: 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, writes: << 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