Has the Fukushima nuclear power plant disaster changed your mind?

[RandomGuy]

I certainly have gone from being skeptical, to downright against nuclear power, under any circumstances.

I don't think that paying a few pennies more per kilowatt hour of electricity is that small a price to pay for avoiding the potential of a large swath of the USA being rendered uninhabitable for 20,000+ years.

Nuclear proponents can't guarantee safety and neither can they claim competitive economics.

I just don't see it as being worth the risk.

[ChumpDumper]

I'm still OK with it in places where 9.0 earthquakes are very unlikely. The main problem seems to be the backup cooling schemes. It will be interesting to see if anything new comes out of this.

[Cry Havoc]

To think this disaster could have been averted with a $20,000,000 piece of concrete.

I'm still for nuclear power. I think it's got a lot of potential down the road to become much safer and even more efficient.

[hater]

This disaster is educating the dumbed down ppl at worst. You don't just open up a nuclear plant like you're opening up another McDonald's.

Once you open a plant up it's there forever or you gonna have to deal with consequences. The nuclear fuel and nuclear waste are there and need to be cared for for the next hundeds of years.

[RandomGuy]

To think this disaster could have been averted with a $20,000,000 piece of concrete.

I'm still for nuclear power. I think it's got a lot of potential down the road to become much safer and even more efficient.

It will never be fully safer than alternatives, and the efficiency of other forms of power is coming along as well.

There are alternatives to nuclear power that don't involve exposure to this risk.

It isn't the absolute value of nuclear power that I question, it is the relative value, given that there are alternatives.

[RandomGuy]

I'm still OK with it in places where 9.0 earthquakes are very unlikely. The main problem seems to be the backup cooling schemes. It will be interesting to see if anything new comes out of this.

"very unlikely" would be something like what? once every 200 years?

Given that Chernobyl will be uninhabitable for say, 20,000 years, that means we will have 100 new nuch areas by the time the first one cools down enough to allow for people to live there again.

Not a long term solution, IMO.

The odds of going another 50 years without another large-scale nuclear accident, if we don't scale back nuclear power plants, are pretty small.

[vy65]

It will never be fully safer than alternatives, and the efficiency of other forms of power is coming along as well.

There are alternatives to nuclear power that don't involve exposure to this risk.

It isn't the absolute value of nuclear power that I question, it is the relative value, given that there are alternatives.

What are those alternatives? Renewable sources (wind, solar, etc?)? Coal?

From what I understand, renewable energy is still not economically viable, as compared to nuclear power.

As for non-renewable sources, have you factored in its impact on the environment?

I'm no expert, so I'm really just asking questions and not trying to prove a point.

[RandomGuy]

This disaster is educating the dumbed down ppl at worst. You don't just open up a nuclear plant like you're opening up another McDonald's.

Once you open a plant up it's there forever or you gonna have to deal with consequences. The nuclear fuel and nuclear waste are there and need to be cared for for the next hundeds of years.

That is the other problem that gets glossed over.

What happens if you get a quake like this at/near whatever storage facility you pick?

I guess if we colonize the moon by then, it might not matter as much.

[coyotes_geek]

It hasn't changed my mind, but that's not to say that there isn't a serious need to re-evaluate some things.

[hater]

the whole "nuclear power" concept did not take into account the Godzilla Earthquakes, floods, tsunamis, natural disasters of the next hundred years.

Time to go back to the drawing board.

[ChumpDumper]

"very unlikely" would be something like what? once every 200 years?When was the last 9.0 earthquake in Texas, for example?


Given that Chernobyl will be uninhabitable for say, 20,000 years, that means we will have 100 new nuch areas by the time the first one cools down enough to allow for people to live there again.No plant in the US ever was or ever will be designed like Chernobyl.

[lazerelmo]

I love Texas.

No moratorium on nuclear expansion in Central Texas

http://www.kxxv.com/global/story.asp?s=14250604

[LnGrrrR]

It hasn't changed my mind, but that's not to say that there isn't a serious need to re-evaluate some things.

That's where I am. But I don't have a firm grip on the various kinds of energy formats and the economics/safety/etc of them all.

[Agloco]

I'm no less than 100% biased on this but: Every street corner should have a mini-reactor.....:lol

Seriously though, I don't know if alternative power is viable economically.

[Wild Cobra]

What are those alternatives? Renewable sources (wind, solar, etc?)? Coal?

From what I understand, renewable energy is still not economically viable, as compared to nuclear power.

As for non-renewable sources, have you factored in its impact on the environment?

I'm no expert, so I'm really just asking questions and not trying to prove a point.
All reasons for being for nuclear power.

People need to remember, the oldest reactor with trouble is 41 years old. The others weren't much newer and I think they are all the more dangerous type. The "boiling water reactor." New reactor designs are several orders of magnitude safer.

[coyotes_geek]

the whole "nuclear power" concept did not take into account the Godzilla Earthquakes, floods, tsunamis, natural disasters of the next hundred years.

Time to go back to the drawing board.

So what does "going back to the drawing board" look like for Japan, a country without significant fossil fuel resources who has tapped out their hydroelectric capacity?

[Wild Cobra]

It will never be fully safer than alternatives, and the efficiency of other forms of power is coming along as well.

There are alternatives to nuclear power that don't involve exposure to this risk.

It isn't the absolute value of nuclear power that I question, it is the relative value, given that there are alternatives.
Safer?

How many people have died from nuclear incident from any reactor built in the 90's or later? Now consider these:

Wind vs. Nuclear Power: Which Is Safer? (http://www.thenewamerican.com/tech-mainmenu-30/energy/788)


Nuclear power has been been used to produce electricity for more than four decades, beginning with the Shippingport nuclear power plant in 1957. Today there are 104 nuclear power plants in the United States generating some 60 billion kilowatt hours per year of electricity. There have been no deaths from radiation in more than 40 years of American nuclear plant operations. Even considering the "catastrophe" at Three Mile Island, there has not been a single case of injury to any member of the public. (There were fatalities at the Russian Chernobyl plant, but that plant was radically different from an American nuclear power plant. It did not even have a containment structured around the nuclear reactor.)

How about wind power? How does it fare compared to the perfect record of the American nuclear power industry? Believe it or not, there is an organization, the Caithness Windfarm Information Forum, that keeps data on wind-power-related accidents and/or design problems. Caithness is based in Great Britain, where homeowners have already grown tired of the noise and other wind-turbine-generated problems. Their "Summary of Wind Turbine Accident Data to 31 December 2008" reports 41 worker fatalities. Most, not unexpectedly, were from falling as they are typically working on turbines some thirty stories above the ground. In addition, Caithness attributed the deaths of 16 members of the public to wind-turbine accidents.

wiki: Nuclear and radiation accidents (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_and_radiation_accidents)


Comparing the historical safety record of civilian nuclear energy with other forms of electrical generation, Ball, Roberts, and Simpson, the IAEA, and the Paul Scherrer Institute found in separate studies that during the period from 1970 to 1992, there were just 39 on-the-job deaths of nuclear power plant workers worldwide, while during the same time period, there were 6,400 on-the-job deaths of coal power plant workers, 1,200 on-the-job deaths of natural gas power plant workers and members of the general public caused by natural gas power plants, and 4,000 deaths of members of the general public caused by hydroelectric power plants. In particular, coal power plants are estimated to kill 24,000 Americans per year, due to lung disease[14] as well as causing 40,000 heart attacks per year in the United States. According to Scientific American, the average coal power plant emits more than 100 times as much radiation per year than a comparatively sized nuclear power plant in the form of toxic coal waste known as fly ash.

From Summary of Wind Turbine Accident data to 31 December 2010 (http://www.caithnesswindfarms.co.uk/accidents.pdf)

http://docs.google.com/viewer?pid=bl&srcid=ADGEESj5iR9s03kv0ge4658XIEW2y-__6gR2zWGDUHHRMtn3bu_-EclfTnbFPMAN1jmCPFg7xEmLbSplQmnLVvk5XWnlTz4qpUSatJ MNw6WWVEbY3nGzRyBeM8pe4GGqikQXMboflg1y&q=cache%3AQ1jKXvDaY2IJ%3Awww.caithnesswindfarms.co .uk%2Faccidents.pdf%20human%20deaths%20from%20wind %20turbines&docid=57fda7766d545983b4caaf9071ab4a94&a=bi&pagenumber=1&w=813

[Viva Las Espuelas]

And just think of all those poor, innocent, defenseless birds dying meaninglessly at the hands of those evil blades. Sighhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh

[RandomGuy]

What are those alternatives? Renewable sources (wind, solar, etc?)? Coal?

From what I understand, renewable energy is still not economically viable, as compared to nuclear power.

As for non-renewable sources, have you factored in its impact on the environment?

I'm no expert, so I'm really just asking questions and not trying to prove a point.

The overall efficiency of renewables in generating power has been making it more and more competitive economically as time goes by, and both wind and solar have started creeping up on the important coal price per unit of electricity in terms of cost.

I don't think one can really make the statement that nuclear is more economically viable than renewables, when there have been no new nuclear plants in the US for decades, and the ones that have been built have averaged 200-400% cost overruns. These cost overruns are not unique to the US.

I once spent a lot of time trying to pin down a viable cost per installed unit of electricity for nuclear, and was unable to really get anything I was really comfortable with.

Best I could tell was that the cost was pretty roughly on par with that of renewables. The cost structure is similar in terms of operating life. All your expense is up front in building the things, with fairly minor maintenance costs afterwards (negligible fuel costs).

As for non-renewables, they generally get "subsidized" to some extent, because the people that use/extract oil etc. generally don't pay the full costs of that. Pollution from this process is, in essence, subsidized, by the people/businesses who have to be exposed or harmed in some way.

Given that technological advances, as well as efficiencies of scale seem to favor the continued reduction in costs per unit of electricity for renewables, and similar long-term trends will drive the costs of coal/gas/oil UP, it would seem to be a given that we will depend substantially on renewables towards the end of my lifetime, 30-40 years from now.

The real insurmountable problem that keeps nuclear power from being viable economically, is simply NIMBY. Everybody wants nuclear power as long as it is in the other guy's backyard.

People might get pissy about a wind turbine fucking up their scenic view, but get downright cantankerous if that series of turbines were to be a nuclear plant.

Before, I thought "meh, it isn't economically all that viable, but worth a shot", but now, I just don't think it can be argued plausibly that you can build one to the safety levels that I would be comfortable with.

[RandomGuy]

Safer?

How many people have died from nuclear incident from any reactor built in the 90's or later? Now consider these:

Wind vs. Nuclear Power: Which Is Safer? (http://www.thenewamerican.com/tech-mainmenu-30/energy/788)



wiki: Nuclear and radiation accidents (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_and_radiation_accidents)



From Summary of Wind Turbine Accident data to 31 December 2010 (http://www.caithnesswindfarms.co.uk/accidents.pdf)

http://docs.google.com/viewer?pid=bl&srcid=ADGEESj5iR9s03kv0ge4658XIEW2y-__6gR2zWGDUHHRMtn3bu_-EclfTnbFPMAN1jmCPFg7xEmLbSplQmnLVvk5XWnlTz4qpUSatJ MNw6WWVEbY3nGzRyBeM8pe4GGqikQXMboflg1y&q=cache%3AQ1jKXvDaY2IJ%3Awww.caithnesswindfarms.co .uk%2Faccidents.pdf%20human%20deaths%20from%20wind %20turbines&docid=57fda7766d545983b4caaf9071ab4a94&a=bi&pagenumber=1&w=813

If a wind turbine falls over, will it irradiate an area for 20,000+ years?

How do wind turbine deaths compare to other construction deaths?

Since I assume most of that data is from construction. It is a bit illogical to compare deaths in the construction of wind power to the operation of nuclear plants, not that illogical arguments ever stopped you before.

(edit)


Of the 73 fatalities:
• 52 were wind industry and direct support workers (maintenance/engineers, etc), or small
turbine owner /operators.
• 21 were public fatalities, including workers not directly dependent on the wind industry (e.g.
transport workers).

Oddly enough, placing these things offshore seems to amolierate the risk, as does placing them in sparsely populated areas.

That is a risk that seems a lot more measureable and manageable than the consequences of nuclear meltdowns.

[RandomGuy]

And just think of all those poor, innocent, defenseless birds dying meaninglessly at the hands of those evil blades. Sighhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh

I really don't care about the birds. I want my electricity.

Of course, distributed PV power wouldn't involve such things.

[vy65]

The overall efficiency of renewables in generating power has been making it more and more competitive economically as time goes by, and both wind and solar have started creeping up on the important coal price per unit of electricity in terms of cost.

I don't think one can really make the statement that nuclear is more economically viable than renewables, when there have been no new nuclear plants in the US for decades, and the ones that have been built have averaged 200-400% cost overruns. These cost overruns are not unique to the US.

I once spent a lot of time trying to pin down a viable cost per installed unit of electricity for nuclear, and was unable to really get anything I was really comfortable with.

Best I could tell was that the cost was pretty roughly on par with that of renewables. The cost structure is similar in terms of operating life. All your expense is up front in building the things, with fairly minor maintenance costs afterwards (negligible fuel costs).

As for non-renewables, they generally get "subsidized" to some extent, because the people that use/extract oil etc. generally don't pay the full costs of that. Pollution from this process is, in essence, subsidized, by the people/businesses who have to be exposed or harmed in some way.

Given that technological advances, as well as efficiencies of scale seem to favor the continued reduction in costs per unit of electricity for renewables, and similar long-term trends will drive the costs of coal/gas/oil UP, it would seem to be a given that we will depend substantially on renewables towards the end of my lifetime, 30-40 years from now.

The real insurmountable problem that keeps nuclear power from being viable economically, is simply NIMBY. Everybody wants nuclear power as long as it is in the other guy's backyard.

People might get pissy about a wind turbine fucking up their scenic view, but get downright cantankerous if that series of turbines were to be a nuclear plant.

Before, I thought "meh, it isn't economically all that viable, but worth a shot", but now, I just don't think it can be argued plausibly that you can build one to the safety levels that I would be comfortable with.

Cool, thx. What about Nat Gas?

[Wild Cobra]

Best I could tell was that the cost was pretty roughly on par with that of renewables. The cost structure is similar in terms of operating life. All your expense is up front in building the things, with fairly minor maintenance costs afterwards (negligible fuel costs).

And a good nuclear plant will last for several decades with less maintenance costs per megawatt.


As for non-renewables, they generally get "subsidized" to some extent, because the people that use/extract oil etc. generally don't pay the full costs of that. Pollution from this process is, in essence, subsidized, by the people/businesses who have to be exposed or harmed in some way.

We would disagree here. Renewables are subsidized for political gain in my view. Seems to me the there is no subsidies for oil since you continually call tax breaks, a subsidy. Cleanups like the Exxon Valdez were not the responsibility of the oil producers, but of the ship owners. Too much for them. As for the recent Gulf Coast incident, BP said they would pay, then the government demanded to take over the liability. Again, political reasons.


Given that technological advances, as well as efficiencies of scale seem to favor the continued reduction in costs per unit of electricity for renewables, and similar long-term trends will drive the costs of coal/gas/oil UP, it would seem to be a given that we will depend substantially on renewables towards the end of my lifetime, 30-40 years from now.

Why not wait and let the marketplace do this with capital venture money when the time is right?

You guys are determined to undermine capitalism. Let capital venturists decide when the time is right, instead of using it as another political football.


The real insurmountable problem that keeps nuclear power from being viable economically, is simply NIMBY. Everybody wants nuclear power as long as it is in the other guy's backyard.

That's where good leadership rather than partisanship comes in. Teach the truth instead of lies in political discourse.

[Wild Cobra]

If a wind turbine falls over, will it irradiate an area for 20,000+ years?
How do you expect a serious answer to a exaggerated question?

[Wild Cobra]

I really don't care about the birds. I want my electricity.

Of course, distributed PV power wouldn't involve such things.
But enough PV to make a good dent would decrease the surface temperature and increase the air temperature. What could that do for climate change?

[DarrinS]

It has totally changed my outlook. I'm moving the family to rural Pennsylvania, where we will live off the land, use horses for transportation, and raise barns.

[RandomGuy]

Cool, thx. What about Nat Gas?

We have gotten some new technologies and have gotten at a lot of natural gas deposits that were previously unaccessable.

Short-term boon and it will bring costs down.

Long-term it still faces similar depletion problems as coal/oil.

I think we will lean on gas as coal/oil gets more expensive, and gas becomes a bit more competitive in terms of $/energy.

We will do to natural gas deposits what we did to oil. We will use up the stuff under us at a fast clip, then be forced to import more and more of it from the same people we buy a lot of oil from today.

Compared to renewables, it is, if I remember correctly, about on par for cost.

Remember that is isn't absolute costs that matter, but relative costs that determine the energy mix. As one cost increases, that shifts demand to other forms of energy.

With new technological advances, energy sources are going to become more and more interchangeable.

[ChumpDumper]

Seems to me the there is no subsidies for oil :lmao

[RandomGuy]

How do you expect a serious answer to a exaggerated question?

I stopped expecting honest reasonable answers from you a long time ago. :p:

20,000 years is the length of time that the Chernobyl manager expects the area to be unfarmable.

It is not an exaggeration of a worst case scenario.

[LnGrrrR]

Safer?

How many people have died from nuclear incident from any reactor built in the 90's or later? Now consider these:


Yes, but when nuclear reactors blow up, the long-term effects are much more devastating. Kinda like the whole "terrorist" thing. After all, terrorist deaths are much less than other, more mundane causes, and yet a disproportionate amount of money is spend towards stopping those attacks.

"Boom or bust" philosophies apply.

[LnGrrrR]

It has totally changed my outlook. I'm moving the family to rural Pennsylvania, where we will live off the land, use horses for transportation, and raise barns.

You mean, you won't be living under that bridge anymore? I'm shocked.

[ChumpDumper]

It has totally changed my outlook. I'm moving the family to rural Pennsylvania, where we will live off the land, use horses for transportation, and raise barns.There are nuclear power plants in rural Pennsylvania.

[RandomGuy]

You guys are determined to undermine capitalism. Let capital venturists decide when the time is right, instead of using it as another political football.

That's where good leadership rather than partisanship comes in. Teach the truth instead of lies in political discourse.

Puh-lease.

No nuclear plant has ever been built without often heavy, direct assistance from governments. None. You can't claim that is "capitalism".

The truth is that I am just no longer comfortable with the risk, and I know the truth.

The only thing I want is an "incubator" period, of some hefty direct subsidies for renewables. Let the competing technologies and companies hash it out, and then slowly phase them out.

At that time, the most economical, free-market favored companies and tech will have given us the answer.

It doesn't get more capitalistic than that.

[DarrinS]

You mean, you won't be living under that bridge anymore? I'm shocked.

:lol


I live in a van, down by the river.

[Wild Cobra]

I stopped expecting honest reasonable answers from you a long time ago. :p:

20,000 years is the length of time that the Chernobyl manager expects the area to be unfarmable.

It is not an exaggeration of a worst case scenario.
I specified newer reactor designs?

Thanks for proving you lie about taking the high road when you always manipulate the intent of what others say.

[ChumpDumper]

So 2000 years?

[Wild Cobra]

Yes, but when nuclear reactors blow up, the long-term effects are much more devastating. Kinda like the whole "terrorist" thing. After all, terrorist deaths are much less than other, more mundane causes, and yet a disproportionate amount of money is spend towards stopping those attacks.

"Boom or bust" philosophies apply.
New designs will not blow up.

[Wild Cobra]

Puh-lease.

No nuclear plant has ever been built without often heavy, direct assistance from governments. None. You can't claim that is "capitalism".

The truth is that I am just no longer comfortable with the risk, and I know the truth.

The only thing I want is an "incubator" period, of some hefty direct subsidies for renewables. Let the competing technologies and companies hash it out, and then slowly phase them out.

At that time, the most economical, free-market favored companies and tech will have given us the answer.

It doesn't get more capitalistic than that.
Need for large scale power is different than need for unproductive power. To what extent nuclear plants were subsidized, if any, I don't know. They are at least productive compared to there political football renewables.

Have numbers for subsidies that do not include tax breaks? Link please.

[ChumpDumper]

To what extent nuclear plants were subsidized, if any:lmao

Have numbers for subsidies that do not include tax breaks? Link please.:lmao

[coyotes_geek]

Have numbers for subsidies that do not include tax breaks? Link please.

Follow link, scroll down to exhibit 28-16. $1.2 billion of subsidies to the nuclear industry in 2006, only 0.4% of that in the form of tax breaks.

http://www.window.state.tx.us/specialrpt/energy/subsidies/index.php#nuke

[Agloco]

If a wind turbine falls over, will it irradiate an area for 20,000+ years?

I'm not certain where this 20k figure came from, are you talking about an area being inhabitable, or viable for food growth, or ?

[Wild Cobra]

Follow link, scroll down to exhibit 28-16. $1.2 billion of subsidies to the nuclear industry in 2006, only 0.4% of that in the form of tax breaks.

http://www.window.state.tx.us/specialrpt/energy/subsidies/index.php#nuke
Most of that is research and development costs not needed, but are political bearing items.

How about numbers that apply to nuclear plants. Can they be built without subsidies? Don't you think the energy giants would if they could get past the legal impasses?

[RandomGuy]

I specified newer reactor designs?

Thanks for proving you lie about taking the high road when you always manipulate the intent of what others say.

http://www.spurstalk.com/forums/picture.php?albumid=219&pictureid=1579

I know you deliniated that, but the "worst case scenario" has not ever changed for nuclear power.

We have improved newer designs and Chernobyl was a bad design to begin with, but as CosmicCowboy pointed out, even the newer designs are not invincible. There is a possibility that the earthquake may have cracked those casings, and we are left with a possibility of a release similar in scale to Chernobyl if there is a serious meltdown that breaches it.

I do not intentionally mis-represent what others say, ever, but I sure as hell don't have to accept the underlying assumptions in what is said, as I don't here.

The newer designs, as seems evident in the list of nuclear accidents, still have not eliminated the human element, have they?

The best design in the world is still subject to human error, bad management, and corner-cutting. Imagined slights on my part will not change that.

[LnGrrrR]

:lol


I live in a van, down by the river.

Nice retort. :lol :toast

[LnGrrrR]

New designs will not blow up.

We hope. I don't think anyone sells their designs as "Almost totally guaranteed not to fail, we think". But that's probably more the truth.

[RandomGuy]

Most of that is research and development costs not needed, but are political bearing items.

How about numbers that apply to nuclear plants. Can they be built without subsidies? Don't you think the energy giants would if they could get past the legal impasses?

I honestly don't know how much cost those legal challenges add. Do you?

Are you trying to imply that if we just cleared the legal barriers, a magical nirvana of cheap nuclear power would ensue?

I think you vastly underestimate the engineering challenges and up-front costs.

Give me a decent starting figure in $$ for an installed Mwh in nuclear and we can get a good starting handle on the true competitiveness of nuclear, and try to isolate the legal costs.

And about those legal obstacles:

I don't see any way around them anyways. They are simply the cost of doing business for nuclear.

This is all why I was convinced it was simply uneconomical before.

Now, as I pointed out, it seems there is just more risk to nuclear plants than proponents are admitting to.

Please keep arguing. If Fukushima gets worse, your arguments about safety will hang around your neck, like all the other albatrosses you carry.

[MannyIsGod]

No. The Power Plant situation has fully confirmed my opinion that Wild Cobra is one of the dumbest motherfuckers around. There must have been a nuclear meltdown within his dome because I'm positive there is not a single living cell within it.

[RandomGuy]

New designs will not blow up.

Bullshit.

Link to any nuclear engineer saying that?

I seriously don't think you can find one, cool-aid boy.

I double-dog dare you.

TRIPLE-DOG dare you.

[RandomGuy]

ZLZj3zOUZNs

[ChumpDumper]

How about numbers that apply to nuclear plants. Can they be built without subsidies? Don't you think the energy giants would if they could get past the legal impasses?Why would they turn down free money?

[coyotes_geek]

Bullshit.

Link to any nuclear engineer saying that?

I seriously don't think you can find one, cool-aid boy.

I double-dog dare you.

TRIPLE-DOG dare you.

..........Randomguy created a slight breach of etiquette by skipping the triple dare and going right for the throat!

[CosmicCowboy]

Why would they turn down free money?

:lmao

Ever heard of Jeffrey Immelt, Chump?

[ChumpDumper]

:lmao

Ever heard of Jeffrey Immelt, Chump?I've heard of you and your golf carts.

[Wild Cobra]

Bullshit.

Link to any nuclear engineer saying that?

I seriously don't think you can find one, cool-aid boy.

I double-dog dare you.

TRIPLE-DOG dare you.

Let me rephrase that. There are new designs that cannot blow up.

[Wild Cobra]

i'm no expert on the subject but someone answer this for me:

isn't there radioactive waste by product from these nuclear power plants?

Yes


doesn't that stuff take millions of years to break down?

So does the natural material they started with


won't it eventually add up and make the earth uninhabitable and destroyed? what about all the shit that's leaked into the sea, is the water and fish going to be unsafe?

It can be diluted back to natural levels. What I don't understand is why they don't dilute it at least a substantial amount for storage.

there are other issues. Under forced fission, other radioactive isotopes are made outside their natural decay pattern. Still, waste storage shouldn't be the problem it is.

[RandomGuy]

Let me rephrase that. There are new designs that cannot blow up.

Fair enough, they can't blow up.

Can they meltdown?

That seems to be the case in Fukushima.

What would happen should a large glob of molten radioactive goo at 4,000C hit an underground body of water?

[CosmicCowboy]

If anything, this points out the need for a good safe disposal/storage site for the spent fuel rods. The bulk of the radiation vented to the atmosphere has come from the spent rods in the storage pool that were still stored at the site...

[Agloco]

isn't there radioactive waste by product from these nuclear power plants?

doesn't that stuff take millions of years to break down?

Uranium-238 takes about 45 billion years to decay to background. The longest lived isotope in nuclear waste is Cesium-137, which takes 307 years to decay to background. I heard that one of the reactors is using MOX fuel which is a Plutonium blend. PU 239 is found in about 7% quantity...this has a decay of 240k years to background.



won't it eventually add up and make the earth uninhabitable and destroyed? what about all the shit that's leaked into the sea, is the water and fish going to be unsafe?

No, you begin with a set amount and the decay chains proceed accordingly (ie the amount of radioactivity on this planet is not increasing).

All elements above lead (82) are radioactive. All elements heavier than lead strive to become lead (mostly in the form of Pb208), and given sufficient time, they do. Pb 208 is stable.

This shouldn't affect the food chain to a significant extent.

[RuffnReadyOzStyle]

If anything, this points out the need for a good safe disposal/storage site for the spent fuel rods. The bulk of the radiation vented to the atmosphere has come from the spent rods in the storage pool that were still stored at the site...

Indeed. There isn't yet even one long-term storage facility for high-level nuclear waste in the entire world. The Swedish and Norweigans are building sites for themselves, and the US was going to use Yucca mountain until it was abandoned. This is a great example of poor regulation - any rational government would require the waste storage facility to be built concurrent with the first reactors. Instead, govts ignored the need for waste storage (at industry's request, no doubt), and now no-one is willing to pay to get it built.

I'm utterly opposed to the proliferation of III gen nuclear reactors which can melt down, and are not "0 emission" as suggested by Obama and others (mining and processing Uranium uses a lot of fossil fuels - EREOI for the entire nuclear life-cycle averages about 15:1). However, I am supportive of IV gen nuclear using the thorium cycle - it can't melt down, and it runs on spent fuel rods from III gen! It also produces a much lower volume of radioactive waste, although the waste produced is more dangerous than III gen waste.

[RuffnReadyOzStyle]

It can be diluted back to natural levels. What I don't understand is why they don't dilute it at least a substantial amount for storage.


You say some really ignorant things. The above is internally contradictory - more radioactive elements have been added to the environment by humans through this disaster, so where are they magically disappearing to so that they're "diluted back to natural levels"? They NOT. By definition, there are now more radioactive atoms in the environment, many of which are extremely long-lived. The only way they will be removed from the local environment is by decay or geosequestration (ie. being buried inside new-forming rocks, a process that takes thousands-millions of years). Also, you've got to consider bioaccumulation through the food chain (see below).


Uranium-238 takes about 45 billion years to decay to background. The longest lived isotope in nuclear waste is Cesium-137, which takes 307 years to decay to background. I heard that one of the reactors is using MOX fuel which is a Plutonium blend. PU 239 is found in about 7% quantity...this has a decay of 240k years to background.

No, you begin with a set amount and the decay chains proceed accordingly (ie the amount of radioactivity on this planet is not increasing).

All elements above lead (82) are radioactive. All elements heavier than lead strive to become lead (mostly in the form of Pb208), and given sufficient time, they do. Pb 208 is stable.

This shouldn't affect the food chain to a significant extent.

Um, no. Only someone not actually trained in biology/ecology would say that. This will affect food chains through bioaccumulation - as smaller organisms are eaten by larger ones, the radioactive elements become more concentrated. We see exactly the same thing with heavy metals, organchlorines and other long-lived dangerous chemicals. It is the reason polar bears have ridiculously high levels of DDT and other organochlorines (over 500x US EPA 'safe' levels) even though DDT is only used in the tropics.

This disaster will affect generations to come over a widespread area in the form of birth defects and increased cancer rates. Everything in the world is interconnected, and all of the toxic and radioactive pollution we are saturating the planet in comes back to hurt us at a population level, not to mention the damage it does to ecosystem sustainability.

I'd advise you all not to fall into the trap of wishing this kind of thing away. This disaster, just like the Gulf oil spill, is directly related to the way we all live and it will affect us all. You can't rationalise away the effects of a disaster like this - they are what they are. Learn from it for the future.

[Agloco]

Um, no. Only someone not actually trained in biology/ecology would say that. This will affect food chains through bioaccumulation - as smaller organisms are eaten by larger ones, the radioactive elements become more concentrated. We see exactly the same thing with heavy metals, organchlorines and other long-lived dangerous chemicals. It is the reason polar bears have ridiculously high levels of DDT and other organochlorines (over 500x US EPA 'safe' levels) even though DDT is only used in the tropics.

This disaster will affect generations to come over a widespread area in the form of birth defects and increased cancer rates. Everything in the world is interconnected, and all of the toxic and radioactive pollution we are saturating the planet in comes back to hurt us at a population level, not to mention the damage it does to ecosystem sustainability.

I'd advise you all not to fall into the trap of wishing this kind of thing away. This disaster, just like the Gulf oil spill, is directly related to the way we all live and it will affect us all. You can't rationalise away the effects of a disaster like this - they are what they are. Learn from it for the future.

I think you're being a bit melodramatic about this, not to mention the fact that you're making assumptions about the ultimate radiation burden this event will ultimately pose to the environment. I based my prior statement on what we know now (or at least what the authorities are letting us get). 400 mrem/hr over the course of this event won't cause significant issues with our food chain. To say otherwise is pure speculation on your part and is the type of mindset that invites the hysteria we commonly see when the word "nuclear" is used.

[Agloco]

You say some really ignorant things. The above is internally contradictory - more radioactive elements have been added to the environment by humans through this disaster, so where are they magically disappearing to so that they're "diluted back to natural levels"? They NOT. By definition, there are now more radioactive atoms in the environment, many of which are extremely long-lived. The only way they will be removed from the local environment is by decay or geosequestration (ie. being buried inside new-forming rocks, a process that takes thousands-millions of years). Also, you've got to consider bioaccumulation through the food chain (see below).

I know this wasn't aimed at me directly, but I need to ask you if you understand that the red part means. And please don't tell me that it automatically equates to increased radiation dose/exposure......because it doesn't.

[Wild Cobra]

Fair enough, they can't blow up.

Can they meltdown?
No. they are completely safe.

[RuffnReadyOzStyle]

I think you're being a bit melodramatic about this, not to mention the fact that you're making assumptions about the ultimate radiation burden this event will ultimately pose to the environment. I based my prior statement on what we know now (or at least what the authorities are letting us get). 400 mrem/hr over the course of this event won't cause significant issues with our food chain. To say otherwise is pure speculation on your part and is the type of mindset that invites the hysteria we commonly see when the word "nuclear" is used.

I'm pretty sure you'll find there has been significantly more radioaction released to the environment than is currently being disclosed. Two reactor fires and 3 (or is it 4?) explosions already? This is not an insignificant event, and I have little doubt that we will find out well after the fact that at least one of the container cores have been breached.

My main point was something you're continuing to ignore - bioaccumulation through food webs will mean that significantly more than background levels end up in middle and top predators.


I know this wasn't aimed at me directly, but I need to ask you if you understand that the red part means. And please don't tell me that it automatically equates to increased radiation dose/exposure......because it doesn't.

I was making a rhetorical point - if you release more radioactive particles into the environment than were there before, by definition you will have more a more radioactive environment until those particles and their decay products have decayed to a negligible level. By definition, the level of background radiation will be higher than it was before until sufficient decay has occurred. I made no other claims based on this.

And, no, I am not being melodramatic at all. To suggest that a disaster of this magnitude will have little effect on the surrounding environment (and probably more subtle widespread effects as well due to the interconnectivity of the planet's systems) is naive at best.

People want to rationalise away the effect of events like this, usually with something along the lines of "it doesn't affect me, so what do I care?" Well, sure as hell it will affect people living in that area with higher cancer rates, and through the food web will affect us all, so I think that's a dangerous way of thinking. The only way to prevent future such disasters is to change the way we think and behave.

[LnGrrrR]

No. they are completely safe.

Really? Who's telling you this? The people selling the product?

I think this comment goes against WC's world-famous (tm) skepticism.

[Wild Cobra]

Really? Who's telling you this? The people selling the product?

I think this comment goes against WC's world-famous (tm) skepticism.
Completely safe in the aspect that there cannot be thermal runaway, meltdowns, etc.

[RuffnReadyOzStyle]

Really? Who's telling you this? The people selling the product?

I think this comment goes against WC's world-famous (tm) skepticism.

What he's not telling you is that IV gen nuclear is still years or decades away from commercialisation, less if we properly invested in R&D right now. However, he is right in that thorium cycle reactors won't melt down or explode like uranium reactors.

As for "completely safe", thorium reactors still produce radioactive waste that must be stored for thousands of years (although they produce far less of it than uranium reactors), so "completely safe" is an overstatement. Certainly "safer" is reasonable though.

[Wild Cobra]

Really? Who's telling you this? The people selling the product?

I think this comment goes against WC's world-famous (tm) skepticism.
I don't know the details, but they are smaller reactors of a few megawatts rather than hundreds or gigawatts. There are newer variations of the TRIGA reactor. Know little detail otherwise, except that as the core increases in temperature, the reaction decreases. It becomes self regulating that way.

[Wild Cobra]

What he's not telling you is that IV gen nuclear is still years or decades away from commercialisation, less if we properly invested in R&D right now. However, he is right in that thorium cycle reactors won't melt down or explode like uranium reactors.

As for "completely safe", thorium reactors still produce radioactive waste that must be stored for thousands of years (although they produce far less of it than uranium reactors), so "completely safe" is an overstatement. Certainly "safer" is reasonable though.I wasn't thinking of thorium, and these reactors I heard of use low enriched uranium.

[byrontx]

We should go balls out developing thorium-based reactors.

[Agloco]

I'm pretty sure you'll find there has been significantly more radioaction released to the environment than is currently being disclosed. Two reactor fires and 3 (or is it 4?) explosions already? This is not an insignificant event, and I have little doubt that we will find out well after the fact that at least one of the container cores have been breached.

I can't and won't make those assumptions. If you feel the need to in order to make a hypothetical point, go right ahead. Explosions? They mean nothing without context, again showing that you really don't understand the nature of the goings on, at least not in a manner that qualifies you to make these wild assertions about a major impact on the food chain or any other part of Japans ecosystem.

Give it some time Ruff, your stance may well bear out. All I'm saying is that given what we know, you can't make the claim of a "Chernobyl-like disaster scenario yet.




My main point was something you're continuing to ignore - bioaccumulation through food webs will mean that significantly more than background levels end up in middle and top predators.


I ignored it because, again, the dose rates currently present at the reactor don't leand any sort of weight to this argument. How much bio-accumulation in a fish would cause a problem for humans? Assume said human ate 2 fish per day.


I was making a rhetorical point - if you release more radioactive particles into the environment than were there before, by definition you will have more a more radioactive environment until those particles and their decay products have decayed to a negligible level. By definition, the level of background radiation will be higher than it was before until sufficient decay has occurred. I made no other claims based on this.

And the claim you made is patently false. Sure you have more radioactive atoms by number, but that doesn't translate to higher dose or exposure rates. In your line of thinking, you completely neglect the modes of decay of various isotopes, their half lives, as well as the contribution to the dose rate from each isotope. You've swung around the term "long lived isotopes" as well without considering the relative biological effect of each. It's a much deeper puzzle than simply having "more radioactive atoms" in the area. To borrow a line from you: "Only a person not trained in radiologic/nuclear physics would say that"




And, no, I am not being melodramatic at all. To suggest that a disaster of this magnitude will have little effect on the surrounding environment (and probably more subtle widespread effects as well due to the interconnectivity of the planet's systems) is naive at best.


Of what magnitude? Again, I put it to you to produce something substantive that indicates that a major radiologic event is taking place which will harm the ecosystem for years to come. As I said earlier, you may come to be correct here but I certainly pray that you're wrong.



People want to rationalise away the effect of events like this, usually with something along the lines of "it doesn't affect me, so what do I care?" Well, sure as hell it will affect people living in that area with higher cancer rates, and through the food web will affect us all, so I think that's a dangerous way of thinking. The only way to prevent future such disasters is to change the way we think and behave.

Understand that as a person who works with radiation for a living I think your argument is compelling. Unfortunately the information we are getting just doesn't bear your doomsday scenario out. I no way am I approaching this with a cavalier attitude. Radiation and nuclear safety are always agendas high on my list. I don't happen to agree that a knee jerk reaction is necessary though. Let's get all of the facts first, then proceed from there.

[ElNono]

It hasn't changed my mind in that I want nuclear power but not the uranium-plutonium kind, which unfortunately is the mainstream type of reactors nowadays. They produce incredible amounts of waste, they're super expensive, but at the time they also produced enriched uranium which was 'needed' during the nuclear arms race.

We were discussing Thorium not long ago, a much safer type of reactor. I rather invest in more R&D on that as a viable energy source than wind/solar, which we already know are severely limited in capacity.

[ElNono]

As for "completely safe", thorium reactors still produce radioactive waste that must be stored for thousands of years (although they produce far less of it than uranium reactors), so "completely safe" is an overstatement. Certainly "safer" is reasonable though.

What kind of waste is that? AFAIK, the beauty of thorium reactors is that they don't produce such a thing.

[RuffnReadyOzStyle]

What kind of waste is that? AFAIK, the beauty of thorium reactors is that they don't produce such a thing.

Go and read about the thorium cycle then - plenty of websites will explain it to you. It still produces long-lived radioactive waste, but a lot less than the current uranium reactors.

BTW, apologies because I've also been conflating LFTRs (liquid fluoride thorium reactors: http://celticshub.com/2011/03/15/nate-robinson-annoys-big-baby-sings-perk-smiles-deleted-scenes-from-the-association/) with IV gen IFRs (integral fast reactors), although both are definitely preferable to what's in use today for a variety of reasons. Complex topic though - if you really want to learn about this stuff put aside a lot of time!

[RuffnReadyOzStyle]

I can't and won't make those assumptions. If you feel the need to in order to make a hypothetical point, go right ahead. Explosions? They mean nothing without context, again showing that you really don't understand the nature of the goings on, at least not in a manner that qualifies you to make these wild assertions about a major impact on the food chain or any other part of Japans ecosystem.

Give it some time Ruff, your stance may well bear out. All I'm saying is that given what we know, you can't make the claim of a "Chernobyl-like disaster scenario yet.

I ignored it because, again, the dose rates currently present at the reactor don't leand any sort of weight to this argument. How much bio-accumulation in a fish would cause a problem for humans? Assume said human ate 2 fish per day.

And the claim you made is patently false. Sure you have more radioactive atoms by number, but that doesn't translate to higher dose or exposure rates. In your line of thinking, you completely neglect the modes of decay of various isotopes, their half lives, as well as the contribution to the dose rate from each isotope. You've swung around the term "long lived isotopes" as well without considering the relative biological effect of each. It's a much deeper puzzle than simply having "more radioactive atoms" in the area. To borrow a line from you: "Only a person not trained in radiologic/nuclear physics would say that"

Of what magnitude? Again, I put it to you to produce something substantive that indicates that a major radiologic event is taking place which will harm the ecosystem for years to come. As I said earlier, you may come to be correct here but I certainly pray that you're wrong.

Understand that as a person who works with radiation for a living I think your argument is compelling. Unfortunately the information we are getting just doesn't bear your doomsday scenario out. I no way am I approaching this with a cavalier attitude. Radiation and nuclear safety are always agendas high on my list. I don't happen to agree that a knee jerk reaction is necessary though. Let's get all of the facts first, then proceed from there.

I never claimed that it is a "doomsday scenario" - my point was simply that we shouldn't trivialise the short or long-term effects of nuclear accidents of any scale.

I could tell you work with radiation because it's clear that you know what you are talking about. I'm definitely making some assumptions based on what I've seen (significant explosions, reports of increased radiation levels further afield, reports of materials that could only come from fuel rods in the air, new reports of greatly elevated radiation levels around the plant), and also the Japanese propensity to downplay things (which they have done all throughout this crisis, only to backflip the next day). You are correct though, we don't have enough information to predict anything concrete at this point.

I never said this was a Chernobyl-level disaster (although it still has the potential to be if the rods in either the cooling ponds or reactors become exposed), but any significant release of radioactive isotopes (depending on type, half-life, etc.) is going to have effects on human health and ecosystems, in the localised area at the very least. The question you pose regarding human health and fish is impossible to answer without more information (as you have ably pointed out), as would be the effect on soils and surface/groundwater of any radioactive particle being blown inland.

Point taken. Let's wait until the true extent of this disaster comes out and then discuss it again, but given the dribs and drabs of unfortunate evidence coming out I bet it's a lot worse than is currently being reported.

By the way, do you work in nuclear energy, nuclear medicine, or do you use radioisotopes in your work? I ask not to have a go at you but because I'm curious. It's always good to learn from an expert. :)

[LnGrrrR]

I don't know the details, but they are smaller reactors of a few megawatts rather than hundreds or gigawatts. There are newer variations of the TRIGA reactor. Know little detail otherwise, except that as the core increases in temperature, the reaction decreases. It becomes self regulating that way.

If you don't know the details, how do you know for certain? Do you just trust what you've read without verification?

[DarrinS]

It hasn't changed my mind in that I want nuclear power but not the uranium-plutonium kind, which unfortunately is the mainstream type of reactors nowadays. They produce incredible amounts of waste, they're super expensive, but at the time they also produced enriched uranium which was 'needed' during the nuclear arms race.

We were discussing Thorium not long ago, a much safer type of reactor. I rather invest in more R&D on that as a viable energy source than wind/solar, which we already know are severely limited in capacity.


agreed

[Wild Cobra]

If you don't know the details, how do you know for certain? Do you just trust what you've read without verification?
You want me to remember stuff from almost a decade back, and find links? I'm not going to bother. Believe if you wish, don't if you don't want to. Just do a little research on TRIGA reactor designs, then consider what more modern proprietary design variation could hold.

I have heard some good things I believe from people within my state. There is one of these reactors at Oregon State University (http://web.engr.oregonstate.edu/~mincleah/Archaeometry_index_files/OSU_TRIGA.htm). Maybe you can find some specifics if you have access to academic materials that I don't have access to.

[Agloco]

I never claimed that it is a "doomsday scenario" - my point was simply that we shouldn't trivialise the short or long-term effects of nuclear accidents of any scale.

I could tell you work with radiation because it's clear that you know what you are talking about. I'm definitely making some assumptions based on what I've seen (significant explosions, reports of increased radiation levels further afield, reports of materials that could only come from fuel rods in the air, new reports of greatly elevated radiation levels around the plant), and also the Japanese propensity to downplay things (which they have done all throughout this crisis, only to backflip the next day). You are correct though, we don't have enough information to predict anything concrete at this point.

I never said this was a Chernobyl-level disaster (although it still has the potential to be if the rods in either the cooling ponds or reactors become exposed), but any significant release of radioactive isotopes (depending on type, half-life, etc.) is going to have effects on human health and ecosystems, in the localised area at the very least. The question you pose regarding human health and fish is impossible to answer without more information (as you have ably pointed out), as would be the effect on soils and surface/groundwater of any radioactive particle being blown inland.

Point taken. Let's wait until the true extent of this disaster comes out and then discuss it again, but given the dribs and drabs of unfortunate evidence coming out I bet it's a lot worse than is currently being reported.

By the way, do you work in nuclear energy, nuclear medicine, or do you use radioisotopes in your work? I ask not to have a go at you but because I'm curious. It's always good to learn from an expert. :)

Yes, I work in a field known as radiologic physics. I did a lot of work at reactors and in design earlier on as well. It a broad based field encompassing radiation oncology, radiology, nuclear medicine, as well as radiation safety for those types of practices. We also do a lot of field work to train folks for missions such as this one. Most of the military members over there were probably trained by a colleague or even myself at some point.

I appreciate your point of view here Ruff, and I understand that the ecosystems are quite sensitive to these sorts of things. It's been my experience that the information given is usually suspect as you point out. I base much of what I think on the actions of the crews on the ground though. Are they still there? Did they leave all of a sudden (like last night)? Putting the two together gives a clearer picture than either alone. It's borne of experience and not really anything you can teach from a book, much lss adequately convey in a typewritten message.

Apologies if my tone came across as harsh. I was simply attempting to clarify my point as it's tricky to do online sometimes.

[RandomGuy]

However, I am supportive of IV gen nuclear using the thorium cycle - it can't melt down, and it runs on spent fuel rods from III gen! It also produces a much lower volume of radioactive waste, although the waste produced is more dangerous than III gen waste.

Which then still requires high levels of security, because of the desirability of such waste for a dirty bomb on the part of certain elements of humanity that hate the west with a murderous rage.

[CosmicCowboy]

Yes, I work in a field known as radiologic physics. I did a lot of work at reactors and in design earlier on as well. It a broad based field encompassing radiation oncology, radiology, nuclear medicine, as well as radiation safety for those types of practices. We also do a lot of field work to train folks for missions such as this one. Most of the military members over there were probably trained by a colleague or even myself at some point.

I appreciate your point of view here Ruff, and I understand that the ecosystems are quite sensitive to these sorts of things. It's been my experience that the information given is usually suspect as you point out. I base much of what I think on the actions of the crews on the ground though. Are they still there? Did they leave all of a sudden (like last night)? Putting the two together gives a clearer picture than either alone. It's borne of experience and not really anything you can teach from a book, much lss adequately convey in a typewritten message.

Apologies if my tone came across as harsh. I was simply attempting to clarify my point as it's tricky to do online sometimes.

Glad you are here posting...

[RandomGuy]

I appreciate your point of view here Ruff, and I understand that the ecosystems are quite sensitive to these sorts of things.

You might want to browse the pages here for a thread started by Marcus Bryant about biologists studying the Chernobyl area. I seem to remember he had a thread on the subject, or maybe it was something I read.

The faster breeding things like mice, have developed resistance to radiation, and overall evolution is proceding at a much quicker pace due to increased mutations.

The mice are of particular interest for cancer research, obviously.

[Wild Cobra]

Here is another thing to ponder. Although completely safe, the Westinghouse AP1000's are now being built in China. OSU has a 1/4 scale AP1000 on site.

Power Surge, Vol. 4 No. 2, Spring 2009 (http://ne.oregonstate.edu/news/power_surge.pdf)

wiki: Sanmen Nuclear Power Station (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sanmen_Nuclear_Power_Plant)

wiki: AP1000 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AP1000_reactor)

wiki: TRIGA reactor (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/TRIGA)

[RandomGuy]

Completely safe in the aspect that there cannot be thermal runaway, meltdowns, etc.

(shrugs)

So you keep saying. I am highly dubious of such "infallible" technology.

If some engineer took the time to walk me through it so I could see for myself, I might be somewhat assured, but still would prefer not to accept the risk.

The problem is that I would think such designs would end up being so expensive that the alternatives would be far more economical.

Nuclear power for the sake of nuclear power, when there are other things to generate electricity available, is not a very convincing argument IMO.

As I have said here there are a lot of things completely unresolved in my mind:

Safety of fuel shipments (accident/terrorism)
safety of waste shimpments/storage (accident/terrorism)
Safety of plants themselves (accident/terrorism)
NIMBY lawsuits

[Agloco]

What kind of waste is that? AFAIK, the beauty of thorium reactors is that they don't produce such a thing.

They do. Understand that every sort of reactor which depends on neutron capture/fission reactions has a chance of producing transuranics, which are the primary constituents of the waste products you're discussing. In the thorium fuel cycle though, it takes more neutron captures to produce those wastes than in a conventional UO or MOX reactor ( 6 compared to 1 to be exact).

What that translates to is: On average about 95%-97% of the initial fuel would fission before producing a transuranic waste product, hence the lower overall toxicity in the long run.

So then the two main advantages to Thorium:

1) The relative abundance

2) Less "longer-lived" by products. You can read about transuranic and actinide production if you feel like torturing yourself.

There are others, but a bit more technical in nature. I won't bore you with the details.

I think Ruff posted some good links to pages which discuss the process as well.

[Agloco]

You might want to browse the pages here for a thread started by Marcus Bryant about biologists studying the Chernobyl area. I seem to remember he had a thread on the subject, or maybe it was something I read.

The faster breeding things like mice, have developed resistance to radiation, and overall evolution is proceding at a much quicker pace due to increased mutations.

The mice are of particular interest for cancer research, obviously.

Yeah, I do most of my cancer research with mice and rats since the technologies we're developing and studying aren't FDA approved yet.

It's a very complex puzzle and made even more complicated by the machinery involved in cancer suppression/progression. One look at a molecular oncology text usually has students running for the hills.

The frustrating thing about translational research is that, well, things don't always translate.

Thanks for the tip. I'll browse through.

[RandomGuy]

Since it seems relevant to the discussion:

Most Vulnerable U.S. Nuclear Plants by the Daily Beast. (http://www.thedailybeast.com/blogs-and-stories/2011-03-16/nuclear-power-plants-ranking-americas-most-vulnerable/#)

Methodology of ranking:
http://www.thedailybeast.com/blogs-and-stories/2011-03-16/most-vulnerable-power-plants-complete-methodology/

[RandomGuy]

Yeah, I do most of my cancer research with mice and rats since the technologies we're developing and studying aren't FDA approved yet.

It's a very complex puzzle and made even more complicated by the machinery involved in cancer suppression/progression. One look at a molecular oncology text usually has students running for the hills.

The frustrating thing about translational research is that, well, things don't always translate.

Thanks for the tip. I'll browse through.

Found it. Shoulda just have done the legwork when I first mentioned it, given it took less than 30 seconds to find:
"Chernobyl, My Primeval, Teeming, Irradiated Eden"
http://www.spurstalk.com/forums/showthread.php?t=174226

[Muser]

If Chernobyl didn't change my mind why would this.

[RandomGuy]

If Chernobyl didn't change my mind why would this.

If the Japanese, who presumedly design their plants with such events in mind, can't really ensure the safety of their reactors, what makes you think future or present reactors elsewhere are any safer?

[LnGrrrR]

You want me to remember stuff from almost a decade back, and find links? I'm not going to bother. Believe if you wish, don't if you don't want to. Just do a little research on TRIGA reactor designs, then consider what more modern proprietary design variation could hold.

I choose to believe that NO design is free from flaws.

[Agloco]

Found it. Shoulda just have done the legwork when I first mentioned it, given it took less than 30 seconds to find:
"Chernobyl, My Primeval, Teeming, Irradiated Eden"
http://www.spurstalk.com/forums/showthread.php?t=174226

:toast

Thanks.

[Viva Las Espuelas]

If the Japanese, who presumedly design their plants with such events in mind, can't really ensure the safety of their reactors, what makes you think future or present reactors elsewhere are any safer?

But did they really? Right by an ocean? I mean this is no "I can see Russia from my backyard". It's right fucking there.

[RandomGuy]

But did they really? Right by an ocean? I mean this is no "I can see Russia from my backyard". It's right fucking there.

They didn't really. That is kinda my point.

The switching room that controls the generators meant to power the cooling systems was... in the basement. Whoops.


It is too early to say how Fukushima fared with the calamity, all things considered. Much of the damage seems to have been caused by the tsunami wrecking the diesel generators—a single failure that resulted in a series of others, and was, in turn, compounded by them. Surely, though, planning for such contingencies can reasonably be considered part and parcel of the technology writ large. And this failed on too many fronts. Switching rooms were flooded. Auxiliary power systems failed. And that is before the full extent of the damage suffered by the reactors is known for sure. True, in accordance with safety regulations, these were designed to withstand tremors of magnitude 8.2. That they survived relatively unscathed through a magnitude 9.0 earthquake—ie, one that, given the scale's logarithmic nature, was approximately 15 times more powerful—seems remarkable.

The best designs in the world are still vulnerable to human error, and events outside of what was planned.

Nuclear power for the sake of nuclear power doesn't seem to me to be a good idea, and the consequences of failure can be pretty damn severe.

Any power source has its own set of risks, but the risks involved with nuclear power go far beyond what I find acceptable.

Mitigating those rather extreme risks ends up making nukes uneconomical, so why bother when there are alternatives?

[coyotes_geek]

They didn't really. That is kinda my point.

The switching room that controls the generators meant to power the cooling systems was... in the basement. Whoops.


Designers are constantly faced with situations where multiple threats result in protection measures that are in conflict with each other. Put the control room in the basement and the flood gets you, then the question is why didn't you put the control room up high in a building. Put the control room up high in a building and the earthquake topples that building, the question is why didn't you put the control room in a basement.

[boutons_deux]

"best designs in the world are still vulnerable to human error"

The human error in Japan is buying GE reactors to save money with thin containment walls. The human error in BP oil spill was BP, etc saving money on oversight, safety, controls.

Individuals don't have the power to screw up so much so badly. It takes govts and corporations to have enough power to screw up.

Security and safety always cost, but "broke ass" UCA govt and corporations will always cut safety and security corners to save money.

[Yonivore]

I'm more confident in its safety.

All the alarmist, apocalyptic nattering aside, it appears (as of now) the reactor cores will maintain their integrity and the radioactivity will mostly be confined to the area around the plant.

Given the worst of circumstances, it does not appear we are going to see another Chernobyl.

[jacobdrj]

First, I find it interesting that the right wing seems to be the side pushing the hardest to continue to develop nuclear resources, ironically, Wall Street seems reluctant to back big business in terms of investments into nuclear power. Perhaps investors are just not willing to put their money where some peoples' mouths are...

Second, deaths from wind turbine accidents and coal mine accidents are completely different from possible long term damage caused to the public (deaths or increased cancer rates or increased birth defect rates) as those workers made a conscious choice, making a calculated informed decision to risk their own lives at an acceptable compensation to them. The public gets little, if any say, whether or not they accept the risks posed by a nuclear plant when they fail. People who have a nuclear plant built near their homes have no choice accepting or denying the risk from the long term damage, in terms of lost usable land, contaminated food and water supplies, and do not receive compensation the way a coal miner would, and a coal miner's death rarely contaminates an area for 6000 years, while making surrounding areas risky to live in. Sure, there are counter examples, like the coal-mine fire that is still smoldering through Pennsylvania. But even the land that was made useless there does not significantly contaminate the surrounding down-wind areas to anywhere near the extent of a core meltdown...

[Agloco]

I'm more confident in its safety.

All the alarmist, apocalyptic nattering aside, it appears (as of now) the reactor cores will maintain their integrity and the radioactivity will mostly be confined to the area around the plant.

Given the worst of circumstances, it does not appear we are going to see another Chernobyl.

It was never about the reactor cores. It's all about the spent fuel pools. Those aren't shielded and are in the open. Once a situation occurs where the water drops to critical levels, those may ignite. It would be a la Chernobyl.

[RuffnReadyOzStyle]

I'm more confident in its safety.

All the alarmist, apocalyptic nattering aside, it appears (as of now) the reactor cores will maintain their integrity and the radioactivity will mostly be confined to the area around the plant.

Given the worst of circumstances, it does not appear we are going to see another Chernobyl.

Check the news again. There appears to be a major problem with the reactor 4 cooling pools, possibly exposed rods. Radiation levels around the plant have risen significantly, the exclusion zone has been widened, and the situation continues to worsen. Your faith in technology that has so clearly failed is absurd to say the least.

The 50 remaining workers at the plant are staying put and risking their lives to do so - they are heroes in this horrible crisis like the men who died at Chernobyl. Radiation poisoning is a horrific death, but with typical Japanese stoicism they are willing to sacrifice themselves to help the greater good.

To everyone - take a look at the number of nuclear reactors currently sitting on the world's major faultlines and ask yourself whether that makes any sense whatsoever, or whether there should be a serious push to move nuclear power away from earthquake-vulnerable areas.

[baseline bum]

Check the news again. There appears to be a major problem with the reactor 4 cooling pools, possibly exposed rods. Radiation levels around the plant have risen significantly, the exclusion zone has been widened, and the situation continues to worsen. Your faith in technology that has so clearly failed is absurd to say the least.

The 50 remaining workers at the plant are staying put and risking their lives to do so - they are heroes in this horrible crisis like the men who died at Chernobyl. Radiation poisoning is a horrific death, but with typical Japanese stoicism they are willing to sacrifice themselves to help the greater good.

To everyone - take a look at the number of nuclear reactors currently sitting on the world's major faultlines and ask yourself whether that makes any sense whatsoever, or whether there should be a serious push to move nuclear power away from earthquake-vulnerable areas.

I bet the Japanese workers are a lot more informed than the people who worked Chernobyl. I remember the Red Army took volunteers, offering medals and accolades to kids who had no idea of the danger. They sickeningly called them bio-robots after their remote controlled robots failed in clearing the roof near the blown reactor due to high levels of radiation destroying the electronics.

[RuffnReadyOzStyle]

Yes, I work in a field known as radiologic physics. I did a lot of work at reactors and in design earlier on as well. It a broad based field encompassing radiation oncology, radiology, nuclear medicine, as well as radiation safety for those types of practices. We also do a lot of field work to train folks for missions such as this one. Most of the military members over there were probably trained by a colleague or even myself at some point.

I appreciate your point of view here Ruff, and I understand that the ecosystems are quite sensitive to these sorts of things. It's been my experience that the information given is usually suspect as you point out. I base much of what I think on the actions of the crews on the ground though. Are they still there? Did they leave all of a sudden (like last night)? Putting the two together gives a clearer picture than either alone. It's borne of experience and not really anything you can teach from a book, much lss adequately convey in a typewritten message.

Apologies if my tone came across as harsh. I was simply attempting to clarify my point as it's tricky to do online sometimes.

Thanks for the rundown. :tu

As for the tone and clarifying online, totally I understand as I often shorten things (I have a bad shoulder from typing) which leads to misunderstandings. That's one of the reasons I avoid detailed discussions online these days.


Which then still requires high levels of security, because of the desirability of such waste for a dirty bomb on the part of certain elements of humanity that hate the west with a murderous rage.

As I understand it, the waste from the thorium cycle is far more difficult to use to build weaponry.


You might want to browse the pages here for a thread started by Marcus Bryant about biologists studying the Chernobyl area. I seem to remember he had a thread on the subject, or maybe it was something I read.

The faster breeding things like mice, have developed resistance to radiation, and overall evolution is proceding at a much quicker pace due to increased mutations.

The mice are of particular interest for cancer research, obviously.

Let's not forget that increased mutation rates will also be leading to higher cancer and mortality rates.

Anyway, thanks for finding that article, I'll have a read.

[RuffnReadyOzStyle]

I bet the Japanese workers are a lot more informed than the people who worked Chernobyl. I remember the Red Army took volunteers, offering medals and accolades to kids who had no idea of the danger. They sickeningly called them bio-robots after their remote controlled robots failed in clearing the roof near the blown reactor due to high levels of radiation destroying the electronics.

Wow, that's sick.

I have no doubt that the Japanese workers know what they are doing and the risks involved. My experience of the Japanese tells me that these people are willing to risk their lives to attempt to avert disaster, that's just the kind of culture they have. From a young age they are taught to sacrifice for the greater good.

[Wild Cobra]

It was never about the reactor cores. It's all about the spent fuel pools. Those aren't shielded and are in the open. Once a situation occurs where the water drops to critical levels, those may ignite. It would be a la Chernobyl.
I could see problems if that happened, but as bad as Chernobyl.

[johnsmith]

I wonder if the two "sort of's" explained.........ya know, the way RG asked?

[RandomGuy]

I'm more confident in its safety.

All the alarmist, apocalyptic nattering aside, it appears (as of now) the reactor cores will maintain their integrity and the radioactivity will mostly be confined to the area around the plant.

Given the worst of circumstances, it does not appear we are going to see another Chernobyl.



It was never about the reactor cores. It's all about the spent fuel pools. Those aren't shielded and are in the open. Once a situation occurs where the water drops to critical levels, those may ignite. It would be a la Chernobyl.

Since you don't post here often:

Yoni is a pure political hack.

He will take the position most likely to support anything even vaguely considered "conservative" such as nuclear power, and then do so in the most misleading, intellectually dishonest, or inflammatory way.

Occasionally he manages to set this aside, but I once browsed his recent post history for a few pages and came up with about 12 instances of the phrase "fucking liberals" or the equivalent.

He is here less for any reasoned discussion than for the emotional satisfaction of "sticking it to liberals", IMO.

FWIW.

[Agloco]

I could see problems if that happened, but as bad as Chernobyl.

Well, I did say "a la Chernobyl", but clarification is warranted. I meant that the same mechanism of spread would be in play here. I wasn't referring to the magnitude of that spread.

Here is a quote from the Brits:

"This is a very different situation from Chernobyl, where the reactor went into meltdown and the encasement, which exploded, was left to burn for weeks without any control. Even with Chernobyl, an exclusion zone of 30 miles would have been adequate to protect human health. The problem was that most people became sick from eating contaminated food, crops, milk and water in the region for years afterward, as no attempt was made to measure radioactivity levels in the food supply at that time or warn people of the dangers. The secrecy over the Chernobyl explosion is in contrast to the very public coverage of the Fukushima crisis."

Link: http://www.japanprobe.com/2011/03/16/british-australian-and-american-governments-no-serious-radiation-threat-to-tokyo/

For comparison, the dose rates at Chernobyl just after the reactor roof blew off were around 10-100 Sv/hr. This is an estimate of course, but those numbers are from locations analogous to the points at which the reported readings at Fukushima came from (.1 -.4 Sv/hr).

It's on a different scale than Chernobyl at this point. I don't see it scaling up to a Chernobyl-like scenario unless there's a major explosion involving the either the main reactor core or the spent fuel rods.

[Agloco]

Some news on the political front out of the EU:

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-03-15/merkel-atomic-delay-shows-fukushima-putting-europe-s-energy-goals-at-risk.html