Join Early Retirement Today
Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
Old 03-31-2011, 06:26 PM   #41
Thinks s/he gets paid by the post
GregLee's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Waimanalo, HI
Posts: 1,881
Quote:
Originally Posted by BigNick View Post
If you count deaths per TWh, it turns out that nuclear is pretty safe.
I do think you're going around in a circle, here. "Safe" assumes agreement about what is to be preserved, and evidently you've decided that is human life. I'm not sure that I and others agree about this. Recent interpreters of Darwin's ideas about sexual selection might reasonably think that our deepest motivations have more to do with the biological future of our species than maintaining a large current population of humans.
__________________

__________________
Greg (retired in 2010 at age 68, state pension)
GregLee is offline   Reply With Quote
Join the #1 Early Retirement and Financial Independence Forum Today - It's Totally Free!

Are you planning to be financially independent as early as possible so you can live life on your own terms? Discuss successful investing strategies, asset allocation models, tax strategies and other related topics in our online forum community. Our members range from young folks just starting their journey to financial independence, military retirees and even multimillionaires. No matter where you fit in you'll find that Early-Retirement.org is a great community to join. Best of all it's totally FREE!

You are currently viewing our boards as a guest so you have limited access to our community. Please take the time to register and you will gain a lot of great new features including; the ability to participate in discussions, network with our members, see fewer ads, upload photographs, create a retirement blog, send private messages and so much, much more!

Old 03-31-2011, 08:09 PM   #42
Give me a museum and I'll fill it. (Picasso)
Give me a forum ...
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Northern IL
Posts: 18,299
Quote:
Originally Posted by GregLee View Post
I do think you're going around in a circle, here. "Safe" assumes agreement about what is to be preserved, and evidently you've decided that is human life. I'm not sure that I and others agree about this.
So what is your definition of 'safe'?

Is coal 'safe', with it's acid rain, particulates, carbon emissions, mountain-top removal, habitat destruction, mercury emissions and spewing of more radiation than nuclear plants? I could make a similar list for all major power sources.

-ERD50
__________________

__________________
ERD50 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-03-2011, 01:34 PM   #43
Give me a museum and I'll fill it. (Picasso)
Give me a forum ...
kcowan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Pacific latitude 20/49
Posts: 5,741
Send a message via Skype™ to kcowan
Yes ERD i think a case can be made for or against any power source. The only thing that changes is popular feelings about it.
__________________
For the fun of it...Keith
kcowan is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 04-03-2011, 02:08 PM   #44
Recycles dryer sheets
Pete's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 350
Madame Curie who worked with radioactive material died in 1934 of leukemia. "Radiation is so pernicious and long lasting that even now her papers from the 1890's-even her cookbooks-are too dangerous to handle. Her lab books are kept in lead lined boxes, and those who wish to see them must don protective clothing."-A Short History of Nearly Everything.
__________________
Pete is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-03-2011, 02:53 PM   #45
Give me a museum and I'll fill it. (Picasso)
Give me a forum ...
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Northern IL
Posts: 18,299
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pete View Post
Madame Curie who worked with radioactive material died in 1934 of leukemia. "Radiation is so pernicious and long lasting that even now her papers from the 1890's-even her cookbooks-are too dangerous to handle. Her lab books are kept in lead lined boxes, and those who wish to see them must don protective clothing."-A Short History of Nearly Everything.

And how is that relevant to our use, handling and understanding of nuclear power today? Isn't coal and oil flammable after millions of years?

Oh, and her husband died from a horse cart - so what should we do about that?

Quote:
On 19 April 1906, Pierre was killed in a street accident. Walking across the Rue Dauphine in heavy rain, he was struck by a horse-drawn vehicle and fell under its wheels, his skull was fractured.[23] While it has been speculated that previously he may have been weakened by prolonged radiation exposure, there are no indications that this contributed to the accident.
-ERD50
__________________
ERD50 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-03-2011, 07:09 PM   #46
Recycles dryer sheets
Pete's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 350
Quote:
Originally Posted by ERD50 View Post
And how is that relevant to our use, handling and understanding of nuclear power today? -ERD50
Apparently you missed the point. For one thing, it's just darn interesting..for another, poisoning of the environment (like Marie's things) lasts a long time.

Another interesting thing is that radioactivity was discovered in 1896, was thought to have health benefits, and was added to things like toothpaste and laxatives. It wasn't banned in consumer products until 1938. (SHNE)

Thanks for the info about her husband.
__________________
Pete is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-03-2011, 07:22 PM   #47
Give me a museum and I'll fill it. (Picasso)
Give me a forum ...
dex's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Posts: 5,105
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pete View Post
Apparently you missed the point. For one thing, it's just darn interesting..for another, poisoning of the environment (like Marie's things) lasts a long time.

Another interesting thing is that radioactivity was discovered in 1896, was thought to have health benefits, and was added to things like toothpaste and laxatives. It wasn't banned in consumer products until 1938. (SHNE)

Thanks for the info about her husband.
Your posts in this thread and your signature line help me to add you to my ignore list.
Thanks
__________________
Sometimes death is not as tragic as not knowing how to live. This man knew how to live--and how to make others glad they were living. - Jack Benny at Nat King Cole's funeral
dex is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-03-2011, 07:46 PM   #48
Moderator Emeritus
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 4,929
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pete View Post
Apparently you missed the point. For one thing, it's just darn interesting..for another, poisoning of the environment (like Marie's things) lasts a long time.

Another interesting thing is that radioactivity was discovered in 1896, was thought to have health benefits, and was added to things like toothpaste and laxatives. It wasn't banned in consumer products until 1938. (SHNE)
Note that the radioactive materials M. Curie worked with are all naturally occurring substances with very long half-lives. None of the materials she died from, or that contaminated her texts and materials were artificial radioactives, reactor waste, or fission products. Her search to isolate and identify the substances responsible for Henri Becquerel's penetrating rays led her to handle and process tons of pitchblende ore, attempting to isolate and concentrate the radioactive components.

The damaging effects of long term exposure to high levels of ionizing radiation were not then known, and no precautions were taken beyond those then known for handling of toxic metals. This led to her high lifetime exposure and the contamination of her papers.

These days we have instruments for monitoring radiation, as well as exposure of individuals, and a good understanding of health physics and the steps needed to protect people. We make measurements, use shielding, and carefully track exposure for persons at chronic risk, such as those working around radiation sources (except, oddly, TSA workers, who are forbidden to wear dosimeters around X-ray equipment).
__________________
M Paquette is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-03-2011, 07:50 PM   #49
Give me a museum and I'll fill it. (Picasso)
Give me a forum ...
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Northern IL
Posts: 18,299
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pete View Post
Apparently you missed the point. For one thing, it's just darn interesting..for another, poisoning of the environment (like Marie's things) lasts a long time.
I didn't miss the point. Poisoning of the environment (like acid rain from sulfur emissions from coal, and the radiation and mercury released from coal) lasts a long time.

In case you don't know, there is more radiation around coal plants than nuclear plants. The constant release of the low levels of radiation in the coal builds up over time.

Quote:
Another interesting thing is that radioactivity was discovered in 1896, was thought to have health benefits, and was added to things like toothpaste and laxatives. It wasn't banned in consumer products until 1938. (SHNE)
And science marches on and now we know better. We aren't stuck in 1896, or even 1938.

Quote:
Thanks for the info about her husband.
It's as relevant a threat today as Madame Curie dying from radiation from her actions before we understood the needed precautions. Some of the early steam engines and internal combustion engines blew up - does that mean we can't have any steam turbines or autos either? And there have been some real catastrophes from dams busting. Nothing is without risk.

-ERD50
__________________
ERD50 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-04-2011, 03:26 PM   #50
Give me a museum and I'll fill it. (Picasso)
Give me a forum ...
TromboneAl's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Posts: 11,201
IBTL
__________________
Al
TromboneAl is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-04-2011, 04:10 PM   #51
Give me a museum and I'll fill it. (Picasso)
Give me a forum ...
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Northern IL
Posts: 18,299
Quote:
Originally Posted by M Paquette View Post
Note that the radioactive materials M. Curie worked with are all naturally occurring substances with very long half-lives. None of the materials she died from, or that contaminated her texts and materials were artificial radioactives, reactor waste, or fission products.
Maybe you can help out, my Googling and my memory are failing me...

I recall reading/hearing somewhere about the components of nuclear waste, and that some large percent decays in a short time (days/weeks/months?), and another large % decays in months/years, a bit more in years/decades, and only a small % lasts hundreds/thousands of years.

Do you have any source for this kind of data?

Quote:
Originally Posted by TromboneAl View Post
IBTL
Why the heck would this thread get locked

-ERD50
__________________
ERD50 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-04-2011, 05:19 PM   #52
Moderator Emeritus
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 4,929
Quote:
Originally Posted by ERD50 View Post
Maybe you can help out, my Googling and my memory are failing me...

I recall reading/hearing somewhere about the components of nuclear waste, and that some large percent decays in a short time (days/weeks/months?), and another large % decays in months/years, a bit more in years/decades, and only a small % lasts hundreds/thousands of years.

Do you have any source for this kind of data?
The dropoff is an exponential decay. All the fission products keep decaying until they are stable. After a reactor is shut down, these are what make all the heat that has to be dealt with.



"Retran" is a software model that groups the fission products into 10 groups, assumes full power til shutdown, and then models exponential decay. "Todreas" is another model that needs a detailed operating history and models the decay heat in detail.

There are a large number of possible fission products that vary with the exact fuel mixture being used. (This can be used as a 'fingerprint' to identify the source of materials, BTW.)

This table shows U-235 reactor fission products and half-lives ranked by yield:
Fission product yield - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The Wikipedia tables are readable interpretations of the huge chain fission yield tables the IAEA published. These are complete, but really hard to slog through.
__________________
M Paquette is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-13-2011, 01:28 PM   #53
Moderator Emeritus
Nords's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Oahu
Posts: 26,620
Quote:
Originally Posted by TromboneAl View Post
IBTL
I may be a little late to the game, Al, but apparently IBTL too...
__________________
*
*

The book written on E-R.org, "The Military Guide to Financial Independence and Retirement", on sale now! For more info see "About Me" in my profile.
I don't spend much time here anymore, so please send me a PM. Thanks.
Nords is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-13-2011, 08:49 PM   #54
Recycles dryer sheets
Tigger's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Posts: 388
I hope this comment doesn't cause the thread to be locked. I've been delaying posting my reply because I was busy with work. I'll try not to continue this discussion, but I'd like to post it before it's no longer possible to reply to M Paquette's comments.

Quote:
Originally Posted by M Paquette View Post
One radioactive decay, releasing one gamma ray, which intersects and interacts with the P52 gene in one reproducing cell can cause cancer. Whether that one decay comes from an atom from a nuclear power plant, or from that banana you had with lunch is, of course, also a matter of chance.
Maybe someone should inform the Japanese that what's happening there isn't bad when you compare it to bananas.



Quote:
Originally Posted by M Paquette View Post
If you had absorbed significant Iodine-131 from a reactor accident or atomic testing, there might be an increased chance of thyroid cancer. A dose of 10 nanograms adds roughly a chance of one in one million to the baseline incidence rate of roughly one in ten thousand over a lifetime. Compare and contrast with a typical medical dosage to treat hyperthyroidism of roughly 1000 nanograms of I-131.
Thanks for the numbers, I appreciate.

But Iodine-131 has a very short half life (8 days) and is just one part of the puzzle. Half life is much longer for Uranium, Cesium, Plutonium, etc. A number of fuel rods have been damaged, which increases risk of such things being released, and the huge quantities of spent fuel on the site could also lead to spreading quite a bit of nasty stuff if things should turn for the worst. I just read that minute amounts of radioactive strontium have been detected in soil and plants in Fukushima Prefecture beyond the 30-kilometer zone. It is the first time that radioactive strontium has been detected since the Fukushima plant began leaking radioactive substances.
UPDATE: some amount of nuclear fission seems to be going on in open air!

Also, how reliable is the information we have on the risks of these substances?

The nuclear establishment doesn't exactly encourage researchers who challenge it with unwelcome findings.
An excerpt from “The Nuclear industry: A History of Misleading Claims”, by Dr Sue Wareham OAM:

Dr Alice Stewart’s discovery that children who had been exposed in the uterus to X-rays had double the risk of developing leukemia and other cancers, was of great significance and is now undisputed in medical practice. And yet her findings were aggressively rejected by the nuclear lobby,14 both within and outside government, and by the ICRP.

Subsequently, Stewart worked with Professor Thomas Mancuso, Professor of Occupational Medicine at the University of Pittsburgh in the US, on the health of workers at the Hanford plutonium production facility. When their results showed cancer incidence roughly ten times that predicted by A-bomb survivor studies, Mancuso’s research funding ceased, and the US Government attempted to destroy data that he had collected.15

Other scientists who suffered the consequences of raising concerns about the effects of radiation exposure include John Gofman, who died in August 2007, and his colleague Arthur R Tamplin. Gofman was the chief medical researcher for the Atomic Energy Commission in the US, which both regulated and promoted the US nuclear industry. After he and Tamplin published data in 1969 showing that the risks from low dose radiation were much greater than that stated by the government (despite strong attempts by others at censorship), the two lost virtually all of their research funding.16

Dhirendra Sharma was a leading figure in science policy research at India’s Jawaharlal Nehru University, and was an outspoken critic of the Indian nuclear power program and its links to nuclear weapons. He alleged secrecy, lack of accountability, mismanagement and corruption. His book India’s Nuclear Estate was published in mid 1983. In December 1983 he was suddenly transferred out of the Centre for Studies of Science Policy, with no satisfactory official explanation being given, and thus his ability to further engage officially in science policy studies was diminished.17

In Belarus in 1999, more than a decade after the 1986 Chernobyl accident, Professor Yuri Bandashevsky, head of the Gomel State Medical Centre in one of the most contaminated regions, also paid a heavy personal price for his work. He was arrested and sentenced to 8 years imprisonment, allegedly for his work on the health effects of the accident and his criticism of lack of government resources for medical investigation of the disaster.

A final obstacle in the way of research on the health effects of radiation exposure relates to funding. Rudi Nussbaum, Professor Emeritus of Physics and Environmental Sciences at Portland State University in the US, reports that “Practically all such research has relied on funding by agencies that were created to promote, facilitate and regulate military and civilian uses of ionising radiation, to allay concerns about health effects from occupational and public
exposure, and to fend off litigation for workers’ compensation claims”.18 This situation indicates a clear conflict of interest for those bodies that purport to, on the one hand, protect public health, and, on the other hand, promote an industry that undermines public health.


Quote:
Originally Posted by M Paquette View Post
The figures include Chernobyl, a worst case of an absurdly bad reactor design, a stack of carbon blocks with fuel pellets tucked into holes in the blocks. The damaged reactor actually blew apart. There was no containment whatsoever, and no mechanism to limit dispersion.
Chernobyl may have been the worst case as far as design is concerned, and also the worst case so far. But that doesn't mean future accidents can't be much worse.

A lack of precedents didn’t keep the Titanic and the Hindenburg disasters from happening.

Chernobyl was bad and it lasted ten days. The Fukushima disaster is in its second month now, is not under control, and officials have warned it will be several months before the situation at the nuclear facility is brought fully under control.
What if you run out of "heroes"? What if radiation becomes so strong that you can't send in men or even dump water from helicopters anymore? What if all reactors on the site and the spent fuel that still needs cooling, aren't being cooled anymore and nobody can approach the site anymore? I have no idea, but one "Dr. Tom Burnett" (I don't know if he has any qualifications in this matter) writes: " If reactor 3 is in meltdown, the concrete under the containment looks like lava. But Fukushima is not far off the water table. When that molten mass of self-sustaining nuclear material gets to the water table it won’t simply cool down. It will explode – not a nuclear explosion, but probably enough to involve the rest of the reactors and fuel rods at the facility." And there's much more nuclear fuel in Fukushima than there was in Chernobyl… From the same article: " Making matters worse is the MOX in reactor 3. MOX is the street name for ‘mixed oxide fuel‘ which uses ~9% plutonium along with a uranium compound to fuel reactors."


Quote:
Originally Posted by M Paquette View Post
It did not render a whole country uninhabitable.
Indeed. Chernobyl was a bad case, but no worst case.

Official data on the scope and health effects of the Chernobyl disaster seem to have been understated though.

News from Japan: “Chief Cabinet Secretary Yukio Edano said Friday that the new bans would apply to areas beyond the current 30 kilometer exclusion zone around the stricken Fukushima No. 1 nuclear power plant. Rice production within the 30-km zone is already effectively banned.” “Rice will also be inspected at the time of harvest. If cesium figures exceed safety standards, farmers will be instructed not to ship their rice. The half-life of cesium is 30 years, so the problem is likely to persist.
The agriculture ministry will look at whether replacing soil in banned farmland is a feasible option or whether alternative crops that absorb fewer radioactive substances than rice might be allowed.”

And a prof. Christopher Busby has somewhat worrying estimates of the potential number of victims. I don't know how well supported his views are, but his Wikipedia page looks legit.


Quote:
Originally Posted by M Paquette View Post
Note that the higher the radioactivity a given amount of material exhibits, the faster it goes away.
In Fukushima there are also dangerous products that don't go away fast. Plutonium has a very long half life. Plutonium gives off alpha radiation, which has a relative biological effectiveness about 20 times larger than that of the most radioactive beta and gamma radiation.
Alpha radiation can be blocked easily, unless you ingest the particles. And humans have to eat and drink. “Consuming food containing radionuclides is particularly dangerous. If an individual ingests or inhales a radioactive particle, it continues to irradiate the body as long as it remains radioactive and stays in the body.” (Alan H. Lockwood, MD, a member of the Board of Physicians for Social Responsibility)


Quote:
Originally Posted by M Paquette View Post
(Note: The calculations took me an hour or so, between reference books and running them a couple of ways. I'd appreciate it if any responses also used hard data, rather than the media copout of 'possibly', 'could', 'perhaps as much as', etc. Innumeracy when doing risk assessment is just bad, M'kay?
You seem to have a scientific education. Scientists assure us that nuclear plants are theoretically safe.
My education is in Law (though I work in an entirely different domain). I tend to worry more about things going wrong, because in real life, they do.

On the subject of nuclear energy, I share the feelings of Hirose Takashi, who told this story in an interview:

"Waste plutonium, he said, was buried in pits dug deep into the ground, and then carefully monitored to make sure there was no leakage.
I asked him, “But didn’t you tell us just now that plutonium has a half-life of 24,000 years? Who is going to monitor it for that long?” “The US Government, of course.” “In all of human history, has there ever been a government that lasted for 24,000 years?” He did not answer, but only looked at me with contempt. Evidently he thought I was lacking in patriotism.

This was the moment I realized that a very intelligent, highly trained nuclear engineer can be a fool.

My field, political science, has produced probably only one scientific law: Power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely. But few political scientists have noticed that the closest thing we have to absolute power is nuclear power. Nuclear power corrupts the thinking of its believers in a peculiar way. It seems to tempt them to imagine that they have been raised to a higher level, where common sense judgments don’t apply. Common sense judgments like, it’s very dumb to produce a substance that will continue to radiate death, and will therefore require “monitoring”, for tens of thousands of years."


The US also has a serious problem with spent fuel pools, by the way. There too, earthquakes or other issues can lead to big problems. The industry tends not to mention these things when informing the public about nuclear safety.

Quote:
Originally Posted by M Paquette View Post
Most of the really nasty stuff around Chernobyl is gone now, decayed into stable isotopes.
And spread over many countries, blown around by the wind and spread by contaminated animals. How many people can prove what their cancer has been caused by?

Quote:
Originally Posted by M Paquette View Post
The areas designated as 'contaminated' (as opposed to the worst areas designated 'strict radiation control') originally had radiation levels averaging 9 milliSieverts/year above the background of 50 milliSieverts/year. These areas now have levels of 0.1 to 1 milliSievert/year above background.
Radiation going down is good news. Thanks.


Ok. I'm going to try stop writing in this thread.


I would like to leave you with this thought of Ran Prieur:

"Why do geeks love nuclear power? More precisely, using Howard Gardner's theory of multiple intelligences, why do people with high logical-mathematical intelligence like nuclear power so much more than people with high intelligence in other areas? Framed this way, it's an easy question. In the world of logic and numbers and predictable machines, nuclear power is totally safe. Chernobyl doesn't count because, for political reasons, the plant was not designed, regulated, or run correctly. Fukushima doesn't count because, for economic reasons, the plant was not built to withstand an 8.9 earthquake and tsunami.
Nuclear power would be perfect if only you stinky primates would obey our beautiful science!"
__________________
Tigger is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-13-2011, 11:45 PM   #55
Moderator Emeritus
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 4,929
__________________
M Paquette is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-14-2011, 01:36 AM   #56
Thinks s/he gets paid by the post
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: France
Posts: 1,195
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tigger View Post
And spread over many countries, blown around by the wind and spread by contaminated animals. How many people can prove what their cancer has been caused by?
At an individual level, you can't. But we know how much exposure to radiation is required to produce a 5% increase in lifetime cancers. We know that we aren't seeing those cancers anywhere outside Ukraine, and we know how many extra we are seeing in Ukraine.

Your argument seems to be that we should ban anything that could cause any amount of cancer, anywhere. That essentially means "all human activity". Focusing on one tiny part of that because it's complicated, gets journalists excited, and in some way related to atomic weapons, makes no rational sense.
__________________
Age 56, retired July 1, 2012; DW is 60 and working for 2 more years. Current portfolio is 2000K split 50 stocks/20 bonds/30 cash. Renting house, no debts.
BigNick is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-14-2011, 02:32 AM   #57
Thinks s/he gets paid by the post
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: North of Montana
Posts: 2,753
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tigger View Post
I hope this comment doesn't cause the thread to be locked. I've been delaying posting my reply because I was busy with work. I'll try not to continue this discussion, but I'd like to post it before it's no longer possible to reply to M Paquette's comments.


Well tigger, if one agrees with the expression "I read it on the Internet, it must be true" there is only one conclusion, we're all dead.

However, if one considers your sources it's possible another conclusion might be in order. Consider the source of your quotes:
  • www.zerohedge.com . Must be reliable, after all I read their "Manifesto" trying to determine their credibility. It was: our method: pseudonymous speech... Clearly the best research. After all, if I publish this under my own name I may have to defend my conclusions.
  • Energy Science From the Home Page "With the emerging reality of global climate change, we are now conscious of the imperative to change the ways in which we create and use energy, in all its different forms and applications. Many of our human activities have an impact on the Earth's biosphere - our home. The majority view of scientists around the world is that greenhouse gas emissions have to be brought under control. With atmospheric carbon dioxide at the highest level ever, we need to take urgent action. " Looks like impartial science to me, no foregone conclusions.
  • When the Fukushima Meltdown Hits Groundwater | Hawai`i News Daily Written by " Dr. Tom Burnett" If you go to the end of the article you get "Tom Burnett is a farmer on the Big Island of Hawaii. He blogs at http://drtom.posterous.com. ". Sounds like a great source for nuclear reaction information.

I stopped at this point. It suddenly hit me that there may be things google can find that might just be opinion, not facts. Ok by you?
__________________
There are two kinds of people in the world: those who can extrapolate conclusions from insufficient data and ..
kumquat is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-14-2011, 08:39 AM   #58
Give me a museum and I'll fill it. (Picasso)
Give me a forum ...
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Northern IL
Posts: 18,299
I won't take the time to go point-by-point, but I would like to respond to this characterization you provided of those who support nuclear (bold mine):

Quote:
Originally Posted by Tigger View Post
...
I would like to leave you with this thought of Ran Prieur:

"Why do geeks love nuclear power? More precisely, using Howard Gardner's theory of multiple intelligences, why do people with high logical-mathematical intelligence like nuclear power so much more than people with high intelligence in other areas? Framed this way, it's an easy question. In the world of logic and numbers and predictable machines, nuclear power is totally safe. Chernobyl doesn't count because, for political reasons, the plant was not designed, regulated, or run correctly. Fukushima doesn't count because, for economic reasons, the plant was not built to withstand an 8.9 earthquake and tsunami.

Nuclear power would be perfect if only you stinky primates would obey our beautiful science!"
I can only speak for myself, as one of those logical/geeky types. That 'easy answer' does not describe me at all. M Paquette's graphic sums it up. It isn't that nuclear is 'totally safe' (a completely illogical statement, by the way, so that quote is really a non-sequitur), but that it has proven to be safer than other forms of energy production.

Logically, things must be looked at in context. Ran Prieur, and yourself, are not doing that. I simply, logically need to ask - what is the alternative? Oh, if we go all solar, wind etc, we will need huge, massive, energy storage devices to cover the gaps in sun and wind. Tell me how you are going to store 24G-watt-hours safely? That's a whole heck of a lot of power to stuff into one place?

-ERD50
__________________
ERD50 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-14-2011, 10:54 AM   #59
Thinks s/he gets paid by the post
GregLee's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Waimanalo, HI
Posts: 1,881
Quote:
Originally Posted by ERD50 View Post
Oh, if we go all solar, wind etc, we will need huge, massive, energy storage devices to cover the gaps in sun and wind.
Maybe not. My electric company can turn off my electric water heater remotely, when power runs short. We could extend that strategy.

Hydroelectric could provide storage devices if we pumped water back into reservoirs above dams.
__________________
Greg (retired in 2010 at age 68, state pension)
GregLee is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-14-2011, 11:05 AM   #60
Recycles dryer sheets
Tigger's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Posts: 388
Quote:
Originally Posted by M Paquette View Post
Clever.

But historical death rate is only one side of the coin. Death rate if the worst possible case shows up is much more important. That chart simply doesn't take tail risk into account.

It's like in 1999 showing a historical chart of the US stock market and proclaiming stocks a safe investment that always goes up in the long run.

Moreover, death rate is not the whole picture. Long term pollution of inhabitable land is also important.

Also, everything can be compared favorably to worse options. Alzheimer's suddenly seems a wonderful disease:

Deadly Victims:
. Alzheimer's
o Heart disease
O Cancer

Quote:
Originally Posted by BigNick View Post
At an individual level, you can't. But we know how much exposure to radiation is required to produce a 5% increase in lifetime cancers. We know that we aren't seeing those cancers anywhere outside Ukraine, and we know how many extra we are seeing in Ukraine.
I don't think numbers about the dangers of radioactivity are that "hard".

For example: a 2007 study by the National Bureau of Economic Reasearch examined cognitive effects of Chernobyl’s radiation upon Swedish children. It found evidence that: “fetal exposure to ionizing radiation damages cognitive ability at radiation levels previously considered safe.” Knowledge is continually evolving. Fukushima will surely be remembered as a major "learning opportunity".

The clouds from Fukushima have traveled around the world, like those of Chernobyl did before (I'm not saying they're comparable, I'm only talking about how the could have spread). Their effect doesn't coincide with country borders and depends of meterological circumstances. One town, Gävle (Sweden) was in particular hit hard with cesium-137 and still suffers the conqequences. In Gävle, the link has been made with the Chernobyl disaster, but we haven't checked the whole planet with contamination detection equipment. These clouds have gone around the world so to me it seems impossible to know how many victims there really are. Impossible to know doesn't equal safe.

I'm not sure either how trustworthy the numbers are about the Chernobyl victims. Many sources disagree.

And what about this: "Although the 2006 study by the French Institute of Radioprotection and Nuclear Safety said that no clear link could be found between Chernobyl and the increase of thyroid cancers in France, it also stated that papillary thyroid cancer had tripled in the following years."

Quote:
Originally Posted by kumquat View Post
if one considers your sources it's possible another conclusion might be in order. Consider the source of your quotes:
  • www.zerohedge.com . Must be reliable, after all I read their "Manifesto" trying to determine their credibility. It was: our method: pseudonymous speech... Clearly the best research. After all, if I publish this under my own name I may have to defend my conclusions.
  • Energy Science From the Home Page "With the emerging reality of global climate change, we are now conscious of the imperative to change the ways in which we create and use energy, in all its different forms and applications. Many of our human activities have an impact on the Earth's biosphere - our home. The majority view of scientists around the world is that greenhouse gas emissions have to be brought under control. With atmospheric carbon dioxide at the highest level ever, we need to take urgent action. " Looks like impartial science to me, no foregone conclusions.
  • When the Fukushima Meltdown Hits Groundwater | Hawai`i News Daily Written by " Dr. Tom Burnett" If you go to the end of the article you get "Tom Burnett is a farmer on the Big Island of Hawaii. He blogs at http://drtom.posterous.com. ". Sounds like a great source for nuclear reaction information.
I stopped at this point. It suddenly hit me that there may be things google can find that might just be opinion, not facts. Ok by you?
About these three sources:

Zerohedge: quality of the information on that site varies wildly but in two out of these three links they did link to their source, the third is an interview with an activist and those usually don't have footnotes or references. So that seems pretty good to me.

Energy Science: kumquat, in the scientific world there is a strong consensus that global surface temperatures have increased in recent decades and that the trend is caused mainly by human-induced emissions of greenhouse gases. is that climate change is real. Given the implications, logic dictates that action is urgent. That doesn't mean they can't be mistaking, but it's hardly a view from a fringe minority. No scientific body of national or international standing disagrees with this view, though a few organisations hold non-committal positions.

"Dr Tom Burnett" - Note that I wrote: "one "Dr. Tom Burnett" (I don't know if he has any qualifications in this matter)". I can't read his site from my workplace due to technical reasons.

Quote:
Originally Posted by ERD50 View Post
I simply, logically need to ask - what is the alternative? Oh, if we go all solar, wind etc, we will need huge, massive, energy storage devices to cover the gaps in sun and wind. Tell me how you are going to store 24G-watt-hours safely? That's a whole heck of a lot of power to stuff into one place?
I agree, that's a big problem.

But if we keep pouring most of the money into nuclear research, like we've been doing for fifty years, instead of into the quest for cleaner solutions, that problem won't get solved anytime soon.
__________________

__________________
Tigger is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply


Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Nuclear power stocks or funds Sam FIRE and Money 7 09-05-2009 04:56 PM
Nuclear Blowhard ScooterGuy Other topics 6 12-09-2008 07:39 PM
Nuclear Energy..........why not?? FinanceDude Other topics 60 11-19-2007 11:18 AM
Nuclear power plant I am a dope newguy88 FIRE and Money 33 08-16-2006 04:07 PM

 

 
All times are GMT -6. The time now is 09:12 AM.
 
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8 Beta 1
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.