Hospitalization of Gas Waste Contaminated Students Still Gets No Attention Here.

[NNadir]

http://www.fresnobee.com/2010/02/16/1824389/nh-hotel-reopens-day-after-gas.html

No comment on the people blown up by the gas industry in Connecticut a few weeks ago.

http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE61619Q20100207

But we hear lots and lots and lots and lots and lots and lots and lots and lots and lots and lots about tritium from Vermont Yankee.

Not one gram of human flesh has been contaminated, not one death, but lots of comment.

The gas industry and its apologists here - where their little solar and wind fig leaf that doesn't work - is very, very, very, very, very, very selective in its attention.

The gas industry is pretty good at red herrings, no?

The nuclear industries potential, imaginary, or flaked out inflated risks need, in the vaccuous moral imagination of this set, to be zero and they care not a whit for those who have measurable and serious contamination, illness or death at the behest of their ownership, the gas industry.

[madokie]

1. It must be hell

waking each morning with a bad hangover

Lets see now. How is it that the fishes are more capable of dealing with the waste of your so loved nuke plants?
crickets

Take your pick:
http://www.google.com/#hl=en&source=hp&q=italian+mafia+nuclear+waste&aq=1m&aqi=g1g-m1&aql=&oq=mafia+nuclear+&fp=c26c79a56c95bda8

[Chemisse]

2. Some deaths are not so immediate or apparent

Some are slow and insidious and impossible to trace to their source. That is more frightening than a death due to an immediate result of an error or miscalculation, because there is just no way to protect yourself from it.

[malakai2]

3. Perfectly reasonable

I've lived near a nuclear power plant and several coal-fired plants. In all cases, my concerns over environmental contaminants focused on methylmercury, arsenic, selenium, endocrine disruptors in the water supply (atrazine, PCBs, BPA, PBDE, and many others), direct dosing from pesticide drift, things like that. In my world, the direct and indirect effects on my body's biochemistry by fossil fuel burning and industrial agriculture have always been much larger, orders of magnitude larger, than the direct and indirect effects of same from nuclear plant operations.

Any idea how the health effect of drinking tritium-contaminated water for a year compares to, say, radiation exposure from a CT scan, a dental x-ray, or even a commercial plane flight? Do you think if people understood that they'd have to drink from a tritium-contaminated water source for several years before approaching the radiation dose from a single cross-country plane flight that maybe people would develop an irrational fear of radiation exposure during commercial flights? If not, why? There are so many anthropogenic contaminants in the environment, so widely dispersed so as to be unavoidable in the middle of the ocean, in the arctic, or in isolated mountain ranges worldwide, that if people were doing an honest risk assessment all this focus on nuclear contaminants would be redirected to other sources that are actually causing harm.

Fossil fuel burning, industrial agriculture, and industrial use of polyaromatic hydrocarbons should have much more attention than nuclear power plants.

[Chemisse]

4. They absolutely should

It is a crime that we are so complacent about the thousands of untested chemicals that are poisoning us daily.