Makes sense thanks.There's a diffs between exposure and contamination. Both of the examples in the quote are contamination.
If, in the former example, he was coughing up sloughed off lung then he had been inhaling contamination for long enough for tissue necrosis to have occurred. In the latter case: entirely possible that there was highly active dust was on Sashenoks hand
Just speaking as a radiation worker of 20 plus years..
This is how he is a lobbyist -If it was an HBO series on the wonders of not being vaccinated, would you have a different tone.
Lobbyist how? He makes the point for nuclear power based on evidence. I haven't really found him making campaign contributions...
The same doctor has consulted on a lot of other Nuclear incidents. Where those bankrolled by spies as well?
He runs this organisation. It lobbies for Nuclear Power, it is in their statement on their front page.Environmental Progress (EP) is a research and policy organization fighting for clean power and energy justice to achieve nature and prosperity for all.
Possibly yes. Everyone has bias, so it needs to be assessed accordingly.Ah, thanks. So we can discount academics who promote solar PV and other "renewables" because they're apologists for the "renewables" industry. Got it.
A lot of the costs are incurred by regulatory constraints.My only reservation is around the capital costs to build these plants can be exorbitant and that may not necessarily be sustainable going forward and may actually be what stops nuclear going forward.
Hinckley?I am so pro-nuclear, I moved to a different country to go build one. The view outside of my office, right now of a reactor under construction.
What do you mean by lobbying?
Very cool. What country be that?Possibly yes. Everyone has bias, so it needs to be assessed accordingly.
I am pro-nuclear. I believe it is the safest and most environmentally friendly way to generate electricity.
My only reservation is around the capital costs to build these plants can be exorbitant and that may not necessarily be sustainable going forward and may actually be what stops nuclear going forward.
I am so pro-nuclear, I moved to a different country to go build one. The view outside of my office, right now of a reactor under construction.View attachment 671173
I don't think the hormesis model (a little bit might be a good thing) is correct either. I rather think that a position of "we don't know" is better representative of the actual risk.When Chernobyl happened radiobiologists celebrated. It seems morbid but the Chernobyl incident filled in the missing part of the graph. Prior to Chernobyl all the data we had about the biological effects of radiation was acquired from Hiroshima and Nagasaki and involved obscene doses. The important conclusion from Chernobyl is that a bit of radiation *might* be a good thing. The official line is that we don't take that risk.
See: Linear no-threshold model.
If we adopted that attitude we would remove radiotherapy as a possible treatment for cancer.I don't think the hormesis model (a little bit might be a good thing) is correct either. I rather think that a position of "we don't know" is better representative of the actual risk.
I am in the UK.very
Very cool. What country be that?
Quick one. The nuclear process around the Chernobyl reactor: was it a correct summary?
Beat me to it.With radiotherapy however, the radiation dose is not in the hormetic zone, rather it is a high dose that is restricted mostly to the tumour.