Kontact 

The cars grind the road up and kick that dust into the air. That's where you'll be breathing it.

livedarklions

Prove it. See post 67, second paragraph.. You're just restating the same stupid claim.

Kontact 

I think that there are enough warnings in life about the downsides to inhaling radioactive particulate that you're going to have to be the one to "prove" something.

You must defend tobacco companies for a living. Does being belligerent work in court, or just on the internet?

Polaris OBark

I realize this is only written by scientists, not tobacco company divorce lawyers, so some might find it less than compelling:

https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-021-03111-3

DangerousDanR

I rode 56 miles today on radioactive roads, breathing in radioactive air which had radioactive dust in it... Because everything is radioactive to some degree.

This is the real issue. What level of radioactivity should be considered safe. And if something is added to the aggregate used to build roads which exceeds the limit, but the overall mixture does not, should that be considered safe?

The State of Oregon where I formerly resided had a legislature full of the usual suspects who passed a law prohibiting the disposal of radioactive waste without specifying a limit.

These geniuses told the state department of Health to enforce the law, even though the DoH had explained to them that the law prohibited flushing the loo.

I don't claim to know what the proposal in Florida will allow, and I don't want dangerous levels of radiation in road construction, but I don't have enough information to know if that is what is proposed in Florida.

But the opposition to this proposal doesn't pass the smell test for being partisan in origin.

P.S: the article referenced above about toxic levels of metallic particles in the air on certain roads was talking about roads in Poland being polluted by the <expletive> cars from the Soviet Union being driven in Poland to this day. So I agree that Communist cars are rubbish and I am glad that I don't see very many Yugos or Ladas on the road.

livedarklions

Let me guess, you didn't actually read the article you linked, because this is right at the beginning:

"Bike path dust was heavily contaminated with Zn, Cd (Geoaccumulation index Igeo 4) and Pb (Igeo 3), sourced predominantly from nonexhaust car emissions. ". This isn't ground-up road, it's ground-up cars and trucks, especially brake pads. It's a serious issue for cyclists and worth a thread in A&S. Why don't you start one if you're so concerned?


​​Your source is just fine, but it proves my point, you and the other guy are focusing on the low-level radiation somehow becoming airborne only because it makes it cycling relevant. So now you want to discuss road dust by emphasizing something that almost certainly wouldn't be a significant source of it, and to discuss the issue of this material by emphasizing a ridiculously unlikely scenario when there are obviously real risks to using this material.

You two can character assassinate me all you want, but you're just clowning yourselves. The tobacco defense analogy is hilarious because you're arguing essentially that the real reason to make the tobacco companies liable is because you might get cancer from a flicked bit of ash that was kicked into your nose by your bike tire. Personally, I'd go with lying about the effects on smokers as part of the sales pitch and reformulating the product to make it more addictive, but that wouldn't fit it into a cycling forum, so you guys just handed the case to the tobacco companies so you could argue it here. I get that neither one of you is smart enough to understand the analogy, but that is exactly what you are doing with this "I might inhale radioactive road material" argument.

I don't need to "prove" that inhaling radioactive particulate is safe, by the way, because neither of you can show that there is even the remotest chance that this would happen if this material was used in paving. Paving the road with a weak fertilizer, though, has very clear environmental risks, but it's not cycling relevant nor does it have much to do with the very weak concentration of trace radioactive material. The radioactivity is primarily relevant because it is what makes the material unsuitable for other forms of construction (radon gas concentration in closed environments).

Kontact 

Said the guy who used the word "stupid" in his first response to me.

At this point I'm not really interested in breaking down the facts of this situation with you. I just think you're an obnoxious person that I wouldn't want to have any conversation with.

Polaris OBark

Just put him on your ignore list. He isn't worth wasting any more time on.

livedarklions

Too funny. You guys have done nothing but repeat a single claim and just insult me when you're completely incapable of defending it.

And being called obnoxious by Kontact is really hilarious.

/thread