lolwot, “That doesn’t mean they are offering “fantasy predictions”, more like warnings.” Warnings without verifiable certainty are just scary stories. There is a pretty good track record for the scary story telling crowd. The probability of adverse health impact to exposure to less than 100 millirem per year of radiation is not only uncertain by may be beneficial. The EPA set the Yucca mountain standards at 15 millirem per year for the next 10,000 years out of concern for public welfare?
Manipulation statistics for political purposes is an art form much like dramatic prose. So the same politically motivated agency applies standards to Coal than cannot be met by biofuel under the pretext of public health and safety concerns.
Now, because of the fear of warming, the EPA will get some pressure from liberal supporters to reduce radiation limits because nuclear is now less likely to be danger it was once thought to be by the warm and fuzzy liberal scientists that use linear non threshold modeling to “prove” how dangerous exposure to low doses of radiation could be.
So “warnings” from some sectors would be laughable if they were not so expensive.
