Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Hi there,
There is an issue with role permissions that is being worked on at the moment.
If you are having trouble with access or permissions on regional forums please post here to get access: https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058365403/you-do-not-have-permission-for-that#latest

Low-level radiation exposure, 'safety' rethink.

  • 02-02-2003 1:32pm
    #1
    Typedef
    Closed Accounts Posts: 5,564 ✭✭✭


    I just happened to read an article in the Irish Times, that proports that radiation emitted from Sellafield, even though at a 'safe' (read low-to naturally occuring level) is in fact thirty times more harmful then naturally occuring radiation.

    From the European Committee on Radiation Risk.

    http://www.euradcom.org/2003/execsumm.htm


    Quite simply it seems as if the committee in question, has postulated that the rationale used to label emissions from Nuclear reactors as 'safe' has been proved to be spurious, due to the fact that in and around these plants there is "epidemiological evidence of increased risk of illness", vis-a-vis particular types of cancer.

    http://www.euradcom.org/2003/ecrr2003.htm#press
    There is increasing concern over the dissonance between the modelling of health outcomes of radioactive releases to the environment and the observations.

    Therefore, if one accepts that the methods of asessing radiation exposure from Nuclear power plants has been 'proved' to be false due to cancer black spots around reactors and instead one accepts that reactors 'may' be responsible for this increased incidence of cancer, it is the assertion of the ECRR that 65 million people will die as a result of man made nuclear pollution world wide link and that by inference the 'closer' one lives to such sources of radiation, the more likely it is one will contract cancer as a result of exposure to radiation, over and above the currently accepted paradigms of 'safe' exposure, based on the criteria of naturally occuring so-called background radiation.


Advertisement