Well, I think the general public probably is a bit confused about that. But, I think the disagreement is on the exposure of workers, and the practices around that.
IIRC, nuclear reactors for power have surprisingly high operating costs, even tho the fuel costs are quite low, and most of those costs are radiation controls. (And, no one is saying we need to eliminate controls, just dial them back a bit based on better science of how radiation affects humans.)
What is the argument against nuclear reactors and dosage?
Are you saying that people think they get any elevated radiation dosage around a nuclear power plant at all?
I’m not the OP, nor am I very good at succinctly summarizing what’s in my head in a way that I’m confident would do the topic justice.
The specific term you probably want to look up is “Linear no threshold”.
I think the video Kyle Hill did several months ago though covers the topic very well though.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gzdLdNRaPKc
I have some small nitpicks on how exactly he argued a couple of his points, but his over all point seems reasonable.
Well, I think the general public probably is a bit confused about that. But, I think the disagreement is on the exposure of workers, and the practices around that.
IIRC, nuclear reactors for power have surprisingly high operating costs, even tho the fuel costs are quite low, and most of those costs are radiation controls. (And, no one is saying we need to eliminate controls, just dial them back a bit based on better science of how radiation affects humans.)