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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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
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.
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.
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?)
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.
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.