I'm not saying you're going to get cancer from a tritium sight or compass, but tritium leaks around reactors can be a pretty big deal if the leak is big enough.
On Fri, Apr 1, 2016 at 11:40 PM, Chuck McCown <ch...@wbmfg.com> wrote: > 1) Consider the source > 2) They invoked nuclear bombs (fud) in the article. (Indication of lack of > objectivity). > > 3) They do not tell you that tritiated water leaves your body just like beer > does. (Fear mongering) > > So, yeah, probably the equivalent of a a few chest X rays. > > But that was tritiated water. You would really have to work hard to turn > your gun site tritium into tritiated water. > > -----Original Message----- From: Josh Reynolds > Sent: Friday, April 01, 2016 10:33 PM > To: af@afmug.com > Subject: Re: [AFMUG] Tesla Model 3... who else is getting one? > > http://www.greenpeace.org/international/en/news/Blogs/nuclear-reaction/tritium-poisoning-at-indias-kaiga-nuclear-rea/blog/11450/ > > On Fri, Apr 1, 2016 at 11:21 PM, George Skorup <geo...@cbcast.com> wrote: >> >> Tritium illuminates reticles on some of my scopes, too. I assume that's >> what >> you're talking about anyway. It's sealed inside of an aluminum tube, how >> bad >> could it be? Meh. >> >> On 4/1/2016 10:20 PM, Josh Reynolds wrote: >> >> I can't count the amount of tritium in my house on two hands. >> >> And we always have lots of bananas! ;) >> >> I used to be stuck in a situation where I was forced to breath molten >> "depleted" uranium smoke though :/ >> >> On Apr 1, 2016 10:13 PM, "Chuck McCown" <ch...@wbmfg.com> wrote: >>> >>> >>> I do have chunk of uranium in a drawer in my kitchen. People do not have >>> a realistic sense of the relative risk. >>> >>> From: Chuck McCown >>> Sent: Friday, April 01, 2016 9:11 PM >>> To: af@afmug.com >>> Subject: Re: [AFMUG] Tesla Model 3... who else is getting one? >>> >>> What exactly do you imagine a radiation “leak” is. >>> We are talking uranium dioxide. A ceramic pellet. Does not burn, melt, >>> dissolve, evaporate... >>> >>> From: Stefan Englhardt >>> Sent: Friday, April 01, 2016 7:53 PM >>> To: af@afmug.com >>> Subject: Re: [AFMUG] Tesla Model 3... who else is getting one? >>> >>> Reprocessing does not solve the problem. This waste does not vanish for >>> an >>> insane amount of time. No covering material lasts long enough. You have >>> to >>> reencapsule it to keep radiation inside. You need a place to store it and >>> watch nothing leaks. Our power companies try to split the responsibility >>> to >>> a separate company. They know this company will die sometimes in the >>> future. >>> >>> -------- Ursprüngliche Nachricht -------- >>> Von: Chuck McCown <ch...@wbmfg.com> >>> Datum: 02.04.2016 03:04 (GMT+01:00) >>> An: af@afmug.com >>> Betreff: Re: [AFMUG] Tesla Model 3... who else is getting one? >>> >>> And why are you thinking the waste needs to be encapsulated? >>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radiation_hormesis >>> >>> Just reprocess it. And really it is not that dangerous. A tanker of >>> chlorine or ammonia is much more dangerous. >>> >>> >>> From: Stefan Englhardt >>> Sent: Friday, April 01, 2016 6:56 PM >>> To: af@afmug.com >>> Subject: Re: [AFMUG] Tesla Model 3... who else is getting one? >>> >>> Nuclear is very expensive. If you calculate the cost of moving and >>> reencapsulating the waste for some thousand years. Your ancestors will >>> learn >>> that no energy company will exist long enough to take responsibility for >>> the >>> waste they generated. This will be done by the tax payer. >>> >>> -------- Ursprüngliche Nachricht -------- >>> Von: Josh Luthman <j...@imaginenetworksllc.com> >>> Datum: 01.04.2016 22:18 (GMT+01:00) >>> An: af@afmug.com >>> Betreff: Re: [AFMUG] Tesla Model 3... who else is getting one? >>> >> >
