Path: csiph.com!news.samoylyk.net!fu-berlin.de!uni-berlin.de!individual.net!not-for-mail From: rbowman Newsgroups: alt.comp.os.windows-11,comp.os.linux.misc Subject: Re: Nuclear plants. Date: 12 Oct 2025 01:09:20 GMT Lines: 83 Message-ID: References: <10ar9d9$2a86g$1@dont-email.me> <68d1d3e6@news.ausics.net> <10atuhj$2tidd$15@dont-email.me> <68d333e6@news.ausics.net> <8vvdqlxsif.ln2@Telcontar.valinor> <10b1qqt$3ur87$1@dont-email.me> <10b30vh$5u19$15@dont-email.me> <10b38ru$8o78$1@dont-email.me> <10b3m3n$chkk$1@dont-email.me> <10b3tk2$ekmk$1@dont-email.me> <10b4006$f07a$3@dont-email.me> <90b1ekhq4smsdggtp33lo5t96fs06vi86j@4ax.com> <10bqd7i$2a19s$1@dont-email.me> <8juarlxs1a.ln2@Telcontar.valinor> <10bvsgf$5fvr$3@dont-email.me> <10c06rc$8ane$1@dont-email.me> <10c0dg7$9vip$1@dont-email.me> <10c0m0j$cf58$1@dont-email.me> <10c2iqa$qofe$4@dont-email.me> <10c5497$1er0a$1@dont-email.me> <10c5dtj$1gn95$2@dont-email.me> <10c66un$1ojat$1@dont-email.me> <10c85o8$2kf2m$1@dont-email.me> <10cehjr$12df6$1@dont-email.me> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Trace: individual.net 9lu3fnIO8Up2CkRy6DwB7Q+AkTB3RbOCHy2JBMKXMO9iKm+ph0 Cancel-Lock: sha1:PVLaVB8sLl3gOF8PEJkVg3B4w0o= sha256:yMJE+BgEkU4UD8HGfDCblJRgRHn76Dn0YY+pUZVtM1g= User-Agent: Pan/0.162 (Pokrosvk) Xref: csiph.com alt.comp.os.windows-11:24999 comp.os.linux.misc:75967 On Sat, 11 Oct 2025 21:18:51 -0000 (UTC), Chris wrote: > The Natural Philosopher wrote: >> On 08/10/2025 18:27, Chris wrote: >>>> It is the disjunct between 'regulatory limits' and actual 'danger to >>>> health' that so pisses me off. >>> One is informed by the other, >> >> The problem is, that actually, it wasn't. >> >> Not when there is literally no data on which to base any sort of >> regulation, but there is a real perceived need for one. >> >> At the time regulations were framed we knew... >> >> 1. How much radiation it took to kill a person outright within days >> from radiation poisoning. >> >> 2. That regular exposure to *high* but not lethal doses of radiation >> caused cancer. The radium girls painting dials with radium and licking >> their paintbrushes. Marie Curie. >> >> And that was *all* we knew. >> >> Out of that the LNR myth was born. That the chances of developing >> cancer were a *simple* product of the dose, times the time you were >> exposed to it. >> >> And the regulations were then framed on that assumption and on the >> basis that any cancers so arising would be lost in the noise of all >> other causes. >> >> Even though at the time it was ell known that parts of Britain were >> subject to natural radiation that prohibited people being employed in >> any nuclear industry there due to the high cumulative doses they >> received. And yet there were no apparent excess cancer rates there. >> >> The regulations were framed politically, informed by politics and the >> deliberately induced climate of fear of the Cold War. >> >> They had almost nothing to do with facts data or science. >> >> >> > but it does come down to risk appetite when >>> deciding what the actual limit is. When faced with the question >>> people's appetite is generally very low and the assumed optimum is >>> zero deaths/injuries. >> >> Except when it comes to *every other human activity*. >> >> >>> Unless you're a NASA Astronaut/scientist. They objectively know the >>> real risk and have parametrised their limits of acceptability. For >>> example, they knew the shuttle programme would result in deaths and it >>> was cancelled because the failure rate was unacceptably high. >> >> We haven't cancelled : > > Nuclear hasn't been cancelled either. We are literally building new ones > in the UK. > >> Horse riding Climbing mountains Swimming Driving cars Riding bicycles >> Coal power stations Wind farms Solar panels Lying in the sun Drinking >> alcohol Flying. >> >> All of which are demonstrably far far greater risks than nuclear power. > Other than power stations or wind farms the comparison is a non > sequitur. They're all voluntary and down to personal choice. apropos: theregister.com/2025/10/10/datacenter_coal_power/ "Climate goals go up in smoke as US datacenters turn to coal High gas prices and surging AI demand send operators back to the dirtiest fuel in the stack" No problem, we've got you covered OpenAI. https://www.montanacoalcouncil.org/reserves