Reply #52: Did I say it was "OK"?

[PamW]

Then humans come along and do something that adds 10 units of background radiation in the same location.

Now by your reasoning, there's no harm and no foul, since that 10 units of background radiation is less than the natural load anyway.
==============================================

Did I say it was "OK"?

The philosophy is that you avoid **ANY** unnecessary radiation exposure.

Contrary to your contention, you don't say that it is OK just because it is less than what Mother Nature does.

However, if in spite of all efforts, there is a release; keep it in perspective.

The release at Fukushima is NOT some terrible cataclysm that is going to draw down the curtain on Mankind,
as I've seen some speculate, if not here, in other forums. Dr Boice provide a good overview and perspective
to Congress:

http://www.hps.org/documents/John_Boice_Testimony_13_May_2011.pdf

Try to think of nuclear power accidents like airliner crashes. You obviously don't want ANY!
However, if you unfortunately get one, don't say it is the end of civilization because you lost a couple
hundred people. You LEARN from the tragedy, move on, and do better next time. That's why airline travel
is so safe today.

Nuclear power is amazingly safe, at least in the West. Three Mile Island was costly financially, but was
a non-incident in terms of human health. Fukushima is worse; but it is not the cataclysms some are
desperately attempting to make it out to be as a foil against nuclear power.

It appears that the Japanese talked a good game on safety, but didn't put it into practice when we see
all the design deficiencies and operational deficiencies in the Japanese nuclear program.

The USA should closely examine the accident, as the NRC is doing. However, it appears that the USA learned
the lessons of Fukushima long, long ago, without the need of an accident to teach us.

PamW