Nuclear reactors

[Gawdzilla Sama]

Heck, remember the early 1900s when radium pills and radium coated lamp reflectors were all the rage, and when uranium glazed ware was in fashion so as to enrich the food in healthful elements?

I didn't know you were THAT old.

[Hermit]

I failed to find out how many people get killed in coal mines every year, but heard on the radio earlier this week that the death toll in China ranges from 5000 to 20,000 per annum. As for people dying prematurely because of the environmental effects of fossil-fuel generated electricity compared to that produced by nuclear reactors on a per Watt basis...

Uranium and Plutonium need to be mined as well. Did you look up this statistic as well?

Care to help out? It would be much appreciated.

[JimC]

Heck, remember the early 1900s when radium pills and radium coated lamp reflectors were all the rage, and when uranium glazed ware was in fashion so as to enrich the food in healthful elements?

I didn't know you were THAT old.

Dammit, you beat me to it!

[Gawdzilla Sama]

Heck, remember the early 1900s when radium pills and radium coated lamp reflectors were all the rage, and when uranium glazed ware was in fashion so as to enrich the food in healthful elements?

I didn't know you were THAT old.

Dammit, you beat me to it!

[nellikin]

Plutonium doesn't exist in nature. It is a byproduct of nuclear reactors. It has been detected in the SOIL near the plant. Not the plant itself. Farmers are already having trouble selling their produce becaude of the fear of contamination. Levels of radioactive iodine (as opposed to the stable isotope which we need for our health) arr already 10000 times higher than the legal limit in the ocean near the plant. This will go up, and continue for the next 50 to 100 years, as the have to keep cooling the reactors for that long.

As for uranium mining, there are ears forthe groundwatr in the Great Artesian Basin due to new techniques of fracking and acid extraction to mine uranium. Humans just never seem to learn to be cautious about the environment when there is money involved...

[Svartalf]

Heck, remember the early 1900s when radium pills and radium coated lamp reflectors were all the rage, and when uranium glazed ware was in fashion so as to enrich the food in healthful elements?

I didn't know you were THAT old.

Dammit, you beat me to it!

Some respect for my aching bones you pups.

[Gawdzilla Sama]

Heck, remember the early 1900s when radium pills and radium coated lamp reflectors were all the rage, and when uranium glazed ware was in fashion so as to enrich the food in healthful elements?

I didn't know you were THAT old.

Dammit, you beat me to it!

Some respect for my aching bones you pups.

And risk getting suspended? I think not.

[Warren Dew]

Levels of radioactive iodine (as opposed to the stable isotope which we need for our health) arr already 10000 times higher than the legal limit in the ocean near the plant. This will go up, and continue for the next 50 to 100 years ...

No, it won't. The radioactive isotope of iodine that we're concerned with here has a half life of only 8 days. None of it will be left in 5 years, let alone 50.

Cesium and Strontium are the long term concerns, and they're likely to stay near the site.

[SPMaximus]

http://bravenewclimate.com/2011/04/01/f ... i-april-1/

[JimC]

Levels of radioactive iodine (as opposed to the stable isotope which we need for our health) arr already 10000 times higher than the legal limit in the ocean near the plant. This will go up, and continue for the next 50 to 100 years ...

No, it won't. The radioactive isotope of iodine that we're concerned with here has a half life of only 8 days. None of it will be left in 5 years, let alone 50.

Cesium and Strontium are the long term concerns, and they're likely to stay near the site.

I've read reports in the NewScientist suggesting seriously high levels of radioactive Caesium up to 80 km from the site (in a plume that went NNW), some in agricultural land. Given a half life of around 30 years, and a propensity to enter the food chain, that is definitely a concern...

[Warren Dew]

I've read reports in the NewScientist suggesting seriously high levels of radioactive Caesium up to 80 km from the site (in a plume that went NNW), some in agricultural land. Given a half life of around 30 years, and a propensity to enter the food chain, that is definitely a concern...

We're seeing elevated levels of radioactive Iodine in a recent rain here in Massachusetts at 33 times the legal limit for drinking water. 80 km from the site still counts as near it.

[nellikin]

Levels of radioactive iodine (as opposed to the stable isotope which we need for our health) arr already 10000 times higher than the legal limit in the ocean near the plant. This will go up, and continue for the next 50 to 100 years ...

No, it won't. The radioactive isotope of iodine that we're concerned with here has a half life of only 8 days. None of it will be left in 5 years, let alone 50.

Cesium and Strontium are the long term concerns, and they're likely to stay near the site.

As long as they keep cooling the plant with seawater (which is predicted to continue for the next 50 - 100 years), radioactive iodine will probably be detected. That is because the uncontrolled nuclear reactions taking place in the reactor (which will continue for decades to millennia) will keep producing it and it will keep being released with cooling water into the environment. So, even as it decays, it will be refreshed.

[roter-kaiser]

Uranium yes, Plutonium no...

It is not found in the Earth's crust, far too short a half life...

It is extracted from spent nuclear fuel, after being produced by neutrons interacting with U238 and a subsequent decay pathway..

Correct...my bad. I was thinking too fast.

My point however is this, that when people compare nuclear energy with fossil fuel energy, they tend to only state the positive side of nuclear (no carbon emission) and ignore the negative ones (risk, mining, waste disposal, accidents). This is then compared with the negative sides of fossils (carbon emission, accidents).

I'm by all means no advocate for fossil energy but just because one energy source (fossil) is bad doesn't mean the other one (nuclear) is good. It was revealed today that Japan could have switched much of its energy needs from nuclear to renewable if not for the nuclear lobby which is extremely powerful all over the world. Japan has several dams for drinking water management which could be used for energy production at the same time for a fraction of the cost of an (operating) nuclear power plant, let alone the 150 billion dollars Fukushima will cost in the next 50-100 years. Japan also has wind, waves, tides and geothermal to is disposal, all clean energy sources waiting to be used.

Quotes like

Nukes are the only possible solution unless we want to either a) melt the planet or b) go back to animal powered subsistence farming and let 6 or so billion people die.

are complete and uneducated BS based on ill-educated media releases influence by lobbyist.

[roter-kaiser]

Handled well, nuke power is no more dangerous than other methods, and has the advantage of not feeding into the current climate change problem. What happened in Japan is a grade AAAAA catastrophe with a wave that far exceeded all expectations, and the thing had been built to survive most catyastrophe grade events, and did not hold that bad. Sith happened, we can learn from it without any need to throw out the baby with the bath water.[/quote]

This is the exact problem, it is not handled well. Accidents will always happen due to human failure. No matter how safe you design a nuclear power plant, sometime someone fucks something up and that's when the shit hits the fan.

It may be that Fukushima was design for natural disasters including earthquakes and tsunamis up to 8 m BUT the human error lies therein that it wasn't designed for a tsunami up to 13 m.

How can someone in his right mind still pretend Fukushima was safe when it's in a double meltdown? To me, that's a reliable indicator that it was not safe. A safe reactor wouldn't be melting down.

[Hermit]

I'm by all means no advocate for fossil energy but just because one energy source (fossil) is bad doesn't mean the other one (nuclear) is good. It was revealed today that Japan could have switched much of its energy needs from nuclear to renewable if not for the nuclear lobby which is extremely powerful all over the world. Japan has several dams for drinking water management which could be used for energy production at the same time for a fraction of the cost of an (operating) nuclear power plant, let alone the 150 billion dollars Fukushima will cost in the next 50-100 years. Japan also has wind, waves, tides and geothermal to is disposal, all clean energy sources waiting to be used.

Undoubtedly clean, renewable energy production is preferable to both fossil fuel and nuclear energy, but comparing the history of coal and uranium in terms of environmental impact in general and human death toll in particular - nuclear power is less damaging.

The main reason energy companies are disinterested in the clean alternatives is that both fossil and nuclear energy is still significantly cheaper to produce than the clean and renewable alternatives. While they are ultimately profit oriented and while we - the consumers - tend to go for the cheapest products available, the market just isn't there. No demand, no supply. Us consumers are no less part of it than the owners of the means of production. Welcome to the wonderful world of capitalism.