No More Radiophobia!

Many people are afraid of radiation, but scientists do not consider radiation very dangerous. Therefore they argue for a relaxing of the safety limits

[@pawekrawczyk6782]

Two fun facts: Germany freaks out on every mention of nuclear or radiation, but at the same time they enjoy state-funded "therapy courses" in radon baths in Bad Kreuznach. Also they freak out about deep geological storage for nuclear waste - which naturally decays over time - but have no problem with existing deep geological storage (Herfa-Neurode and Zielitz) where extremely toxic mercury, arsenic and cyanide waste has been safely stored for decades :)

[@Al3xki]

Even funner fact, in Austria spa waters most have a certain amount of radon content in order to be licenses as health spas.

[@keithvb89]

Truth is very exhilarating.

[@JesseHBrewer]

"Well, yes, it's a hundred times more radioactive than normal here in Brazil, but it's okay, because it's NATURAL radiation! Not like the evil ARTIFICIAL radiation at Chernobyl!"

[@TheoRichel]

Explain the difference between natural and artificial radiation. There is none.

[@JesseHBrewer]

@@TheoRichel - Of course there isn't! The quotation marks were supposed to show that I was predicting the stupid comments one may expect of people who actually believe there IS a difference. They are the same ignoramuses who believe that ALL radiation is BAAAD!

[@michelgay9885]

Excellent. Félicitations Théo !

[@DTofMN]

Great video. Manages to make its point without getting too technical. Hopefully, this video gets wide distribution. Nuclear power is our best immediate method of reducing CO2 emissions while maintaining our modern way of life. And hopefully teaching people the truth about the low danger from radiation will make it easier to build nuclear plants.

[@elbuggo]

Why reduce CO2 emission? The ocean will eat all surplus CO2 anyway. There is a chemical balance there between the air and the ocean, and it is laughable that we are able alter this balance. The ocean has dealt with billion of tons of CO2 injected by volcanos for billion of years just fine. It has been converted into other substances, and is stored on the seabed and most has been turned into rocks. Burn as much as you like, there is no problem whatsoever.

[@TheoRichel]

According to Patrick Moore (yes ex-Greenpeace) we are saving the planet with our extra CO2. Plants consume CO2 but give it back as food and wood. but a part is locked in fossil fuels. But the shellfish and also extract CO2 from the atmosphere and store it at the seafloor (or in the white cliffs of Dover). Thanks to earthquakes and volcanoes a part of this carbon comes back in the atmosphere, but over the centuries (aeons) the CO2 concentration was decreasing. IOnce it was 5000 ppm just before the industrial revolution it was 280 PPM. At 150 ppm plants cannot live. With our fossil fuel use we have burnt it back to 410ppm and the earth is greening again!.

[@elbuggo]

@@TheoRichel - Moore too is wrong here. We cant alter this balance. The ocean would immediately correct for the imbalance. Likewise, if the trees should eat all the CO2 in the air, the ocean would soon provide new, and we would be back at the same concentration as today to keep the chemical system balanced. The atmosphere is not just a big tank where we can fill up or tap what we need or want. The ocean is several thousand times "bigger" that the air, and is definitely in charge here. The ocean has dealt with CO2 injected by volcanos for billion of years, and knows how to deal with it to keep the chemical balance in the ocean. The ocean has lots of moderators that will correct these things. Some primer here by a first class geochemist: _6.3.1.2__ Some Thoughts on Ocean Chemistry_ - www.co2web.info/Segalstad_Chapter-6-3-1-2_Ocean-Chemistry_NIPCC_CCR-II-B_2014.pdf

[@TheoRichel]

We can't alter the balance? CO2 is increasing imho Moore is correct. We apparently have corrected a downward trend. Of course shellfish will continue to suck up CO2, but by burning fossil fueles we sort of rejuvenate the planet. I dont like the word 'balance'it has religious conneotations and suggests stasis. Nature is not static, it is dynamic. It changes all the time and 'good'or 'bad'have nothing to do with it. I interviewed Segalstad years ago, see: kzbin.info/www/bejne/emPQf5SbmrCff5o

[@elbuggo]

@@TheoRichel - Very excellent interview there! CO2 in the air will increase if the temperature in the ocean increases. 0C water can hold twice as much CO2 gas as 20C water. There is a chemical explanation for this, find it at Segalstad's webpage somewhere. If the ocean cools, CO2 will soon rain out of the air, and be eaten by the ocean. Simplified: Temperature controls the CO2 in the air, not emissions. Of course the chemistry in the ocean will change if the temperature changes. It is a dynamic system, not static.

[@ukpnpg5528]

Great video! 👍

[@MegaKracka]

Good video and I agree that we overreact to radiation. I'm all for solving our CO2 problem with more reactors, I like LFTRs personally. However, what you should mention in the video is types of radiation. Alpha, beta, gamma, and neutron. Beta radiation can be blocked by clothing and alphas rarely penetrate skin. It's likely alpha radiation from natural decay on that beach. Neutron radiation is the worse, it interacts heavily with water and we are mostly water. Gammas are the least likely to effect you. It's more likely that gammas would pass right through you.

[@TheoRichel]

Thanks for the compliment, but I doubt whether you yourself have understood the video when you start to explain the workings of the different sorts of radiation. All this is irrelevant laboratory science for the public. There are only a few situations in which these dangers have really materialized. Radiation is only dangerous in huge quantities which are only available in accidents and when bombs are detonated....and even then. So why bother? The destruction that fire has caused in human history is huge, but in spite of that everybody uses matches without worrying or wondering what actually happens here chemically.

[@elbuggo]

@@TheoRichel - You should upgrade yourself on those bombes, dude. See if you can locate any crater in Hiroshima, or any Ground Zero? You cant. Not even an epicenter will you find. There has to be there somewhere, because you cant have an entire city flatten by 1 explosion without an epicenter. But no, no discernable traces of 1 big explosion in Hiroshima according to ALL the available footage. Plenty of support in the footage that the city burned to the ground like Hiroshima and Yokohama though. Go to Google images and search for any support for that Hiroshima was flatten by 1 big explosion yourself? There is no support for that notion there - you cant find it.

[@TheoRichel]

I do not know what you are referring to, but here is a story that you may like: theorichel.nl/Are-We-Too-Afraid-Of-The-Atomic-Bomb

[@elbuggo]

@@TheoRichel - Thanks. I am familiar with the issues in that article. Brigadier General Crawford F. Sams is interesting. Long interview from 1979 here: beckerexhibits.wustl.edu/oral/transcripts/sams.html The story on Hiroshima is the foundation for the radiophobia, and therefore very important. What we have been told about this event doesn't add up. See example Sams vs most others. Have in mind, almost all the reports we have on Hiroshima and Nagasaki came from these military controlled sources: United States Atomic Energy Commission United States Strategic Bombing Survey The British Mission to Japan The Joint Commission for the Investigation of the Atomic Bomb in Japan. The Naval Technical fission to Japan. Wilfred Burchett, “journalist” who wrote the first report from Hiroshima. David Goodman, “independent journalist” and co-author of “The Exception to the Rulers.” So this "public demonstration" was certainly well controlled. Actually it sounds like a hoaxsters paradise. Cant go on any longer here now, but also the Trinity experiment was pulled off without any crater, among other things: _September 11, 1945: Reporters are taken to the Trinity test site_ - kzbin.info/www/bejne/aHe9g2h6fb56pc2T

[@elbuggo]

@@TheoRichel - You can learn a lot on Hiroshima, the foundation for the radiation scare, if you study this article and follow the links in the comments: _On This Atom Bomb Anniversary You’re Being Lied to About Hiroshima - and Much More to Make You Fearful_ - www.thedailybell.com/all-articles/news-analysis/on-this-atom-bomb-anniversary-youre-being-lied-to-about-hiroshima-and-much-more-to-make-you-fearful/

[@bourbaking6900]

Ok, but what would be the level of radiation in Tchernobyl without the safe confinement?

[@TheoRichel]

A few microSieverts. The whole sarcophagus is a huge waste of money. atomicinsights.com/giant-new-cover-chernobyl-engineering-marvel-monumental-waste-money/?highlight=sarcophagus

[@October-TE]

@@TheoRichel Dude what are you talking about? It's not a waste of money

[@terjepetersen]

The video says the "official international limit" is 1 millisievert per year. Where does this figure come from? The official occupational limit in Australia is 20 to 50 times higher than that.

[@TheoRichel]

There are lots of limits for different kind of people in different situations. The organisation that issues those is the ICRP, the International Commission for Radiation Protection. They recommend a limit of 1 mSv/yr for the general public. Their recommendation for professionals are different. It is up to countries to adopt and or adapt these recommendations. Here in the Netherlands we have indeed a national limit of 1 milliSievert, though a recent emergency plan for the area where I live suggests much higher levels before people should be evacuated. Chernobyl was evacuated with the limit of 1 mSv in mind and there is some confusion as to what level led to the evacuation 1 mSv or 20 mSv. Oxford university emeritus prof Wade Allison recommends 100 mSv per month, see: kzbin.info/www/bejne/j4uZkn9prNtnrJI&feature=emb_logo

[@jamesmcevoy2145]

ICRP states public limit of 1mSv per year which is adopted in Australia (ARPANZA). ICRP states occupational levels of 20mSv per year averaged over 5 years and no more than 50mSv in a single given year, also adopted by Australia (ARPANZA).

[@krishnachaitanya573]

@@TheoRichel My age is 32, Male. I recently became infected with Coivid and in order to diagnose the condition I have been advised to take 3 CT chest scans in a span of 3 weeks(in May 2021). I came to know that each CT scan is around 7 msv radiation . hence the total radiation exposure is 21 msv in 3 weeks duration. I am so worried about this afterwards. My wife too exposed to 7 msv radiation. I heard that women are more prone to breast cancer after ct scans. Could you please clarify on this issue sir. All our ct scans were performed when our immune system was completely down due to covid. Will that have any adverse effect? Would you be so kind to suggest me the diet , lifestyle,supplements in order to avoid cancer risks in the future. Please let me know if I am in greater risk.

[@sachin_1]

@@krishnachaitanya573 tell me your email id. i will solve issue

[@dislive1]

great video. thank for a work!

[@TheOpticalFreak]

Echt een geweldige video Theo! Mooi werk goed gedaan! ;)

[@themilkmister]

What is the name of the German radiologist at 2:22? The audio is mumbeled.

[@TheoRichel]

She is known as ' Bionerd' you can Google her

[@Puppetmastersfool]

🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣 Children of the Atom Cult on YT 😅😅😅😅🤣🤣🤣😂😂😂

[@ragnadrok7]

Sand racism 😂

[@sadie4479]

I thought we stopped believing radiation has health benefits after that guy’s jaw fell off a century ago :/

[@TheoRichel]

The death of Eben Byers and other radiation incidents (Radium Girls) were important for the establishment of safety limits, but did not end the application of low doses of radiation for all sorts of health purposes. That happened in the fifties with the adoption of the linear no threshold hypothesis that declared any dose of radiation to be dangerous. Today low doses enjoy a renewed interest, see eg www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6945458/ Byers was not a proof of the dangers of radiation, only of the dangers of an incredible amount of radiation. This was abuse in the extreme. I calculated that he must have received (taken) 800 Sieverts and still lived two years after that, though it wasnt much of a life.

[@elbuggo]

@@TheoRichel - very excellent link ther. Edward Calabrese talks about these things and more in this video - excellent video: _Dr. Edward Calabrese The Fraud of LNT and Future of Radiation October 14, 2011_ - kzbin.info/www/bejne/gqnGqoiimp1klZo

[@TheoRichel]

Yes great, but are you aware of what Calabrese discovered about Muller? The video was from 2011 and Calabrese did most on Muller after that. Essentially he shows that not only was the LNT a piece of bad science, but also of fraud. That and the atomic bomb are the parents of the radiation scare.

[@WyattCayer]

That was due to direct contact with the substance. Radium painters would often use their mouth to make the brushes into a fine tip which gave the compound the opportunity to get close enough to damage the cells in the mouth.

[@rachelsaunders7834]

too complicated for poor me