California electric rates are getting ridiculous

Page 7 of 9  
scorpster wrote:

Hmmm.
Another "genius". LOL
MRI (MAGNETIC RESONANCE IMAGING) does NOT involve radioactive materials.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Erma1ina wrote:

Additionally, any radioactive medical waste is required by federal law to be disposed of in specific designated waste management facilities NOT "on site", i.e. NOT in the physician office or medical facility.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
I meant to say CT, Computed Tomography, which involves radiation.
A neonatal abdominal CT effective dose is 20 mSv.
Most nuclear waste has much lower surface dose rate than a CT scan!
...and the waste is kept very carefully contained, away from the public.
Yet I don't see any anti-nuclear demonstrators at the hospitals.
Anti-nuclear extremists try to frighten the general public. Scare tactics to keep us dependent on expensive polluting coal and fossil fuels.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
scorpster wrote:

So what?
As I explained (and you conveniently omitted quoting), radioactive medical waste is REQUIRED BY FEDERAL LAW TO BE DISPOSED OF IN SPECIFIC DESIGNATED FACITIES, NOT ON SITE of the medical facility.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Yes but the 20 mSv dose is being delivered ON-SITE, at the medical facility.
The point is that low-level radiation can be managed in a safe manner.
Waste facilities and on-site storage, likewise, can be done in a SAFE manner, just like the hospitals.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
scorpster wrote:

And what does that have to do with the long-term storage of waste from a nuclear power plant?
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
The nuclear waste being stored long term, in many cases has a lower mSv than a dose from the medical CT scanner.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
scorpster wrote:

You have NO IDEA what you're talking about. LOL.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Radiation exposure from the nuclear fuel cycle is 0.0005 mSv per year (source: Bodansky, Springer) while naturally ocurring radon exposes people to 2.0 mSv per year. And one CT scan exposes one up to 20 mSv in just one session (not just the whole year).
Erma1ina I guess when you have no scientific basis for your argument, you resort to name-calling. You want to keep it scary sounding. Then back up the scare tactics with some kind of scientific facts.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
scorpster wrote:

That from someone ("scorpster") who talked about the radiation from an MRI. LOL
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
I typed MRI but I was -thinking- about CT, and then corrected it. It was a typo, nothing more exciting or revealing than that.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
scorpster wrote:

That error regarding the nature of an MRI reflected your overall lack of familiarity with the subject on which you were commenting.
Your subsequent attempts to "recover" from that error, reinforced the conclusion that you were pulling your assertions from somewhere other than a well-functioning and informed brain. I leave you to deduce the exact anatomical location to which I am referring. LOL
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Erma1ina focus your energy on scientific content instead of more childish comments, it would be more productive.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 12/4/2008 10:43 PM Erma1ina spake thus:

True; the entity known as "scorpster" apparently doesn't know the difference between low-level and high-level rad waste, or is ignoring it or is confused on the issue.
Just to be clear, when we talk about such things as Yucca Mountain, we're talking about *high level* water disposal.
--
Washing one\'s hands of the conflict between the powerful and the
powerless means to side with the powerful, not to be neutral.
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
I'm talking about the radiation level once the waste is properly stored.
The common CAT scan at the doctor's office produces much more frightening levels of radiation in ONE SESSION than the public exposure to high-level waste radiation even if there were some kind of accident at one of these remote storage sites. Amazing how you try to scare the general public, it's all propaganda with little scientific basis.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
scorpster wrote:

It's a shame it's lower than a dose from a CT. We could have free or low cost CT scans otherwise ... Nuclear plant could help reducing the high cost of health care!
(I am obviously mocking, but isn't this how these morons' minds work?)
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

So what? The on-site disposal of nuclear generation waste is the specific designated site with much stricter controls than over medical waste. Don't see a real difference here.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Kurt Ullman wrote:

That was the point, pinhead. There IS a long-term waste disposal system for LOW-level radioactive medical waste so that the risk-benefit ratio for that waste is acceptably low.
That is in dramatic CONTRAST with NO ACCEPTED LONG-TERM SYSTEM for the disposal of the HIGH-level radioactive waste from "decommissioned" nuclear power plants. That HIGH-level waste remains, in the majority of cases, STILL STORED "temporarily"(in some cases for 30+ years) ON THOSE SITES which are scattered around the US with no existing LONG-TERM plan for storage of that waste.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

There are a number of plans, just none that are politically acceptable to someone. More a function of what started this discussion than technology.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Technically some of the contrast media are radioactive.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Related Threads

    HomeOwnersHub.com is a website for homeowners and building and maintenance pros. It is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.