Signarama Jockey
New Member
Yeah, I wouldn't want a leaky canister of Tritium in my house, so there's something to be said about slapping a warning label on the stuff. But I just don't get the layers of red tape..... to get back a little on topic- or a different squirrel chase at least. Tritium is not very dangerous to humans, in-general. everything from the NRC was correct, all the other health issues are risk based and probably knee-jerk litigation. I have family who was/is in the nuclear industry. Their belief as to why the commercial tritium is controlled so tightly has more to do with how difficult it is to isolate tritium when compared to the end results of someone trying to collect fussile material to place in the center of a chunk of fissile material making an even bigger boom that would be very bad for humans.
anything pertaining to nuclear has a bad public image and regulations seems to fly -whether or not they pass the silly test. all other regulation just snowballed from this. (another squirrel chase - the MRI, or magnetic resonance imaging, had to change its name to be used with the general public.. "Nuclear Magnetic Resonance Imaging" tended to scare a lot of people - even though the name is exactly what is happening... Nothing to do with nuclear chemistry, it just shakes the nuclei of the atoms and measures how much force it takes... but the public is afraid of anything "nuclear")
You're probably right that it might be a generalized panic about anything radioactive. Humanity spent so much time being totally unaware of the repercussions of some of the materials we've used (radium, lead, etc), it's not too surprising that we are compensating for that oversight. Like the fear some people have of nuclear reactors.