What did people in the 60s who worked on these experimental reactors think about radiation before today? I understand being close up to the shit could be bad but so is anything else at operating temperatures. Why are ((they)) trying so hard to suppress the truth of unlimited energy? Only 3 deaths in the U.S. due to Nuclear power in 70 years. It makes no bloody sense why I have to worry about so many bs regulations and rules when I work at nuclear facility.t. work at a nuclear plant
>>15464850Deaths due to pure radiation itself are rare but extremely gruesome, you can find some gorey photos from chernobyl of peoples skin melting off and their internal organs liquefying The issue is radiation exposure that doesnt kill you increases your risk of cancer, cumulatively. The more radiation the more likely you will get cancer up until its 100% certain.
>What did people in the 60s who worked on these experimental reactors think about radiation before today?Basically, they knew pretty much everything we know today because it's not, ahem, rocket science. Radiation memes only got big after Chernobyl, because that accident happened in a shit fucking country where morons could run sophisticated equipment like this.
>>15464914Chernobyl is an interesting historical example of what happens when you cut corners for sure. They had all the right safety systems in place to prevent an accident like this except one:The control rods in Russian RMBK reactors had tips of graphite, which increases reactivity at first when they are lowered part-way into the reactor. This is a cost-saving measure, it makes reactors easier to start up. Unfortunately when the A-Z button (equivalent to SCRAM or emergency shutdown in the west) was pressed and all the control rods were inserted at once, the graphite tips caused an increase in reactivity to a reactor that was already overloaded and with poor cooling because of a stress test. The result was that rate of the nuclear reaction increased exponentially and destroyed the armature that allowed the rods to be lowered, they never went in all the way and in fact the 100-ton concrete shield above the reactor was blown through the roof of the building by the ensuing explosion. The graphite from the control rod tips also ignited and contributed to the fire, sending radioactive particles into the smoke cloud that spread over the land
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gKvsKFYmcR0
Radiation doesn't exist
>>15465098I learn something new on this board every day.>radiation doesn't exist>viruses don't exist>space doesn't exist>gravity doesn't exist>dinosaurs didn't existWell, what *does* exist?
>>154648501. Experimental reactors if there's no accident are safe and very well shielded like commercial reactors.2. Exposed to radiation and exposed to radioisotopes are completely different things.Radiation like alpha is no really dangerous unless it's released directly inside your body. Beta has far less penetration than gamma/hard x-rays but it's dangerous enough.Gamma, x-rays are way less absorbed but it's all probabilities to get cancer after being (cumulatively) exposed. Acute radiation poisoning leads to a gruesome death but malignant cancer isn't far better that's why there's sunscreen and anti-tobacco campaigns (also anti nitrite).Now there's the problem of radioisotopes, under normal circumstances you'll never be exposed to them. Some of them like potassium 40, radon or trace amounts of uranium aren't dangerous, but they bioaccumulates and concentrate in very specific tissues (iodine, strontium) and release radiation (alpha, beta) far more damaging than gamma rays.The damage is far more concentrated leading to a far higher (orders of magnitude) chances of cancer.So, is well controlled radioactivity dangerous? no.Radioisotopes, even trace amounts of them are a completely different beast.
>>15465145> but they bioaccumulates but some of them*
>>15464850The trick is to not work place the workers in the reactor core
>>15465116the plan to use retards to turn more people into retards in order to weaken the west
>>15464850you seem dangerously retarded
>>15464907The IAEA paper on the Lia radiological accident is pretty bad stuff.
>>15464850eat cadmium and lead
>>15464850>Is radioactivity even that harmful?>t. work at a nuclear plantyou know what maybe the anti nuclear morons are right after all
>>15466911That would definitely kill him faster than the radiation.
