Nuclear Energy - I need to vent/rant

[Lonewulf]

Nobody I know does that.

TENS OF MILLENIA AFTER TEH COLLAPSE OF NATIONS! THE HORROR! THE HORROR!

 

[robinson]

The wildlife around Chernobyl seems to be adapting to the radiation. I wonder how much evolution is occurring due to radioactive waste?

 

[Lonewulf]

The wildlife around Chernobyl seems to be adapting to the radiation.

Actually, contrary to popular opinion, the background radiation level at the majority of the Chernobyl site is next to negligable. The last figure I saw that caused people to be concerned was the "triple background radiation level"... which is equivalent to a hot summer's day.

The problem with "irradiated" soil isn't the radiation that "sticks around", but instead the nutrients that are leached and contaminated. Eating products from such a site would be harmful, but not because the radiation is sticking around -- instead, it's because of how the material has been altered itself.

As for "adapting to the radiation"... I would like to remind you that some people have stuck around the site, and Nagasaki and Hiroshima have been repopulated.

I really would like to see more education as far as radiation and it's effects are concerned. As well as how nuclear plants are handled today, and how they can be handled in the future. So far, I've been seeing very little education on the subject here.

 

[robinson]

As far as I know, nobody is living anywhere near the contamination site. You have to get permission to even enter the area.

Meanwhile, inside the reactor ...

There has been an exciting new biological discovery inside the tomb of the Chernobyl reactor. Like out of some B-grade sci fi movie, a robot sent into the reactor discovered a thick coat of black slime growing on the walls. Since it is highly radioactive in there, scientists didn’t expect to find anything living, let alone thriving. The robot was instructed to obtain samples of the slime, which it did, and upon examination…the slime was even more amazing than was thought at first glance.

This slime, a collection of several fungi actually, was more than just surviving in a radioactive environment, it was actually using gamma radiation as a food source. Samples of these fungi grew significantly faster when exposed to gamma radiation at 500 times the normal background radiation level. The fungi appear to use melanin, a chemical found in human skin as well, in the same fashion as plants use chlorophyll. That is to say, the melanin molecule gets struck by a gamma ray and its chemistry is altered. This is an amazing discovery, no one had even suspected that something like this was possible

http://unitedcats.wordpress.com/2007/05/29/major-biological-discoveryinside-the-chernobyl-reactor/

 

[Lonewulf]

As far as I know, nobody is living anywhere near the contamination site. You have to get permission to even enter the area.

This took me three seconds to find on google:

http://www.spiegel.de/international/0,1518,412954,00.html

Intriguing what the most basic of research can dig up.

Meanwhile, inside the reactor ...


http://unitedcats.wordpress.com/2007/05/29/major-biological-discoveryinside-the-chernobyl-reactor/

That's actually pretty interesting.

 

[robinson]

So are the mutant wild pigs in the area!

 

[Lonewulf]

So are the mutant wild pigs in the area!

Out of curiosity, I went ahead and did a search on mutant wildlife in Chernobyl.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/4923342.stm

Mutation

In all his research, Sergey has only found one mouse with cancer-like symptoms.

He has found ample evidence of DNA mutations, but nothing that affected the animals' physiology or reproductive ability.

"Nothing with two heads," he says.

Mary Mycio, author of Wormwood Forest, a natural history of the Chernobyl zone, points out that a mutant animal in the wild will usually die and be eaten before scientists can observe it.

And in general, she notes, scientists study populations as a whole, and are not that interested in what happens to particular individuals.

Nuclear guardian

But she too argues that the benefits to wildlife of removing people from the zone, have far outweighed any harm from radiation.

Mouse DNA has changed, but with few visible effects
In her book she quotes the British scientist and environmentalist James Lovelock, who wrote approvingly in the Daily Telegraph in 2001 of the "unscheduled appearance" of wildlife at Chernobyl.

He went on: "I have wondered if the small volumes of nuclear waste from power production should be stored in tropical forests and other habitats in need of a reliable guardian against their destruction by greedy developers".

A large part of the Chernobyl zone within Belarus has already officially been turned into a nature reserve.

Sergey Gaschak wants Ukraine to follow suit and to turn its 2,500 sq km of evacuated land into a reserve or national park.

Unlike the Ukrainian Green Party, he is not bothered if the government goes ahead with plans to build a deep deposit in the zone for nuclear waste from all over the country.

He says the eagle owl will not care two hoots.

 

[luddite]

Let's not polarize this debate. The wildlife is thriving without human interference, but it's not healthy and there are mutations.

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2006/04/0426_060426_chernobyl.html

Moller and Mousseau have shown that certain species in the area have a higher rate of genetic abnormalities than normal.

The scientists are also concerned that the mutated birds will pass on their abnormal genes to the global population.

Mutation isn't the only adverse effect of the radiation. Working in the Red Forest area, James Morris, a USC biologist, has observed some trees with very strange twisted shapes.

The radiation, he says, is confusing the hormone signal that the trees use to determine which direction to grow.

"These trees are having a terrible time knowing which way is up," Morris said.

http://www.metafilter.com/64203/Chernobyl-wildlife-garden-of-eden

The Chernobyl exclusion zone has been mythologized as a sort of wildlife garden of eden with storks, bears, birds, wolfs, pigs etc.. taking over in the absence of man. However it turns out the reports are anecdotal, there have been no formal scientific studies - until now. According to this study of birds, both the number of species and abundance of individuals declined with increasing radiation levels. For example, the most contaminated sites had about two-thirds fewer birds than those with normal levels of radiation. Chernobyl is far from a wildlife paradise, “This was a big surprise to us,” biologist Dr. Mousseau of the University of South Carolina said. “We had no idea of the impact.”

There is a paucity of studies from the area, a comment made repeatedly in my web searches. People may observe that wildlife returns when humans leave, but unsurprisingly, the biologists are not lining up to study just what this wildlife is like. The names Gaschak, Mousseau and Morris come up repeatedly in Chernobyl studies. And the article Lonewulf sent is a mixed bag, pointing out that badly mutated animals wouldn't tend to survive, and would get eaten quickly. It also points to stunted trees and recognized high rates of measured mutation.

I think the implication for humans suggests it's not an area you want to be in. They are anticipating the onset of leukemias. We may not care if large numbers of newborn mice are mutated or sickly, and the mouse population as a whole may be unaffected, but you wouldn't want to see that kind of illness in your own child. It would not be reassuring that other children seem to do okay.

 

[Lonewulf]

Except that the people living in that area have no known problems. The problem isn't living in the area, it's eating the local fauna or flora. That's the way the Bad Things (tm) in Chernobyl reach you.

And yes, let's not polarize the debate. The whole Chernobyl thing is a red herring anyways. Chernobyl just ain't gonna happen again. And yes, I'm confident in saying that. You can say that "hypothetically", it may, "someday", with "evil future companies" happen again, but... sorry. I just don't see it happening.

The facts are pretty simple:

1) Nuclear waste is overrated in it's harm (IT'LL MUTATE YOU INTO THREE EYED MUTANTS FOR TENS OF MILLENIA! THE HORROR!)

2) Low yield radiation is overrated (MY COFFEE IS A RADIATION HAZARD! THE HORROR!)

3) The waste from coal is far worse than nuclear waste.

4) The amount of high yield waste, when combined with use of breeder reactors, is also overrated. (The total amount of waste in a meaningful amount of time can fit in an airplane).

So yeah. I'm not as concerned as the people that throw their arms up and shout out, "THE HORROR! THE HORROR!"

 

[Kevin_Lowe]

Hey, why not? And while we're at it, we can sit around being sarcastic and not contributing at all to any sort of discussion. AKA, trolling.

I think you missed my point. Dr Buzzo's talk of fission-related science fiction technologies might as well have been talk of Luke Skywalker. Unless it actually works here and now it's no good to us. If we get to invoke science fiction technologies then renewable scifi technologies get a guernsey too, and where is that discussion going to get us?

Actually, coal does that. Nuclear "waste" doesn't last that long, and if used with breeder reactors, the total amount of high priority waste would fit in a Boeing 747 (Or a similar vehicle). Radiation burns out, and the more high energy energy burns out much faster than the low yield radiation. And, I'll point out, some of this stuff from nuclear reactors considered "low yield" radiation is about as radioactive as my coffee. I can't stress this enough. Drinking coffee is drinking "low yield" waste.

Everything is radioactive. The sun is radioactive. Rocks are radioactive. You are radioactive. "Radioactive" is just a term that's thrown around like it's the boogeyman. Most of it is unjustified fear.

Yes, high energy radiation is very dangerous, and even long-time exposure of higher levels of low-yield radiation can be very harmful.

However, "tens of millenia after any existing nation dies out"? C'mon, be serious. Either that, or offer some reliable data. No reliable source of radioactive half-lifes has ever put dangerous radiation levels at "tens of millenia" for lifespan.

I'm quite familiar with the physics and chemistry of radioactivity. Not enough to pass a university exam on it with what I know right now, but enough to know flannel when I hear it.

Spent fission reactor fuel contains U-234 (half-life 246000 years), Pu-238 (half-life 88 years then it turns into the aforementioned U-234) and Am-241 (half-life 432 years). Make a big pile of that stuff and it will be a serious health hazard for longer than any human political system has ever endured, by at least a couple of orders of magnitude. Just to get the americium to safe levels will take a containment system built to outlast the probable lifespan of the USA as we know it. Getting the U-234 to safe levels will take a containment system that will far outlast the pyramids.

I have no idea where you get the idea that "No reliable source of radioactive half-lifes has ever put dangerous radiation levels at "tens of millenia" for lifespan". Probably you got it from the same source that told you coffee was radioactive waste. Put it this way: if your pile of spent fuel rods is dangerous today, it will be dangerous in 100 000 years quite comfortably.

 

[luddite]

Nuclear waste is overrated in it's harm (IT'LL MUTATE YOU INTO THREE EYED MUTANTS FOR TENS OF MILLENIA! THE HORROR!)

The rhetoric here is getting out of hand. I know dozens of people who lived in the area and still can't talk about Chernobyl without weeping. I have friends in Kiev whose daughters have unusual ovarian abnormalities. One pointed out that in her daughter's class at least 6 girls have reproductive dysfunctions that she's aware of. There may be more. Of course this isn't statistically significant, but it is suggestive.

I know a lot of the radiation descended on Belarus. Here's an article that says they've got a 40% increase in cancer rates. No, they're not horrible three-eyed mutants. Just people like you and me who are dying of cancer. Or watching their families suffer.

http://www.llrc.org/belarusokeanov.htm

3) The waste from coal is far worse than nuclear waste.

No it's not. Coal waste does not have to spend months or years in spent fuel pools because it would kill anyone who got near it. Coal plants are not entombed. Coal is dangerous because it is routinely released onto the public. But if it were as dangerous as nuclear waste, we wouldn't just be dumping it.

Lonewulf, your assessment of the dangers from nuclear power is disconcerting. One moment you're saying that Chernobyl will never happen again, the next you're saying it's not so bad. It's a lot like the lawyer who argues "My client did not commit this murder and besides he did it in self-defense".

Unfortunately, if people think it's not so bad, they're not likely to take the proper precautions. And I'm no expert but the reports I've heard do not leave room for a lot of confidence - cracked vessels, leaky steam tubes, vessels corroded to within a millimetre of rupture, faulty alarm systems, insufficient backup power, lack of proper safety procedures.

Either we treat past accidents with the respect they deserve, solemnly swear it will never happen again and act accordingly or we acknowledge that the risk of human stupidity and carelessness continues to be high.

 

[Lonewulf]

Lonewulf, your assessment of the dangers from nuclear power is disconcerting. One moment you're saying that Chernobyl will never happen again, the next you're saying it's not so bad. It's a lot like the lawyer who argues "My client did not commit this murder and besides he did it in self-defense".

So I'm supposed to say that Chernobyl was worse than I really think it is? Isn't that being dishonest?

You aren't making a logical argument here.

I'm quite familiar with the physics and chemistry of radioactivity. Not enough to pass a university exam on it with what I know right now, but enough to know flannel when I hear it.

Spent fission reactor fuel contains U-234 (half-life 246000 years), Pu-238 (half-life 88 years then it turns into the aforementioned U-234) and Am-241 (half-life 432 years). Make a big pile of that stuff and it will be a serious health hazard for longer than any human political system has ever endured, by at least a couple of orders of magnitude. Just to get the americium to safe levels will take a containment system built to outlast the probable lifespan of the USA as we know it. Getting the U-234 to safe levels will take a containment system that will far outlast the pyramids.

I have no idea where you get the idea that "No reliable source of radioactive half-lifes has ever put dangerous radiation levels at "tens of millenia" for lifespan". Probably you got it from the same source that told you coffee was radioactive waste. Put it this way: if your pile of spent fuel rods is dangerous today, it will be dangerous in 100 000 years quite comfortably.

If you say so.

 

[Kevin_Lowe]

Every single power source on the planet releases CO2 at some point...see this link

http://www.world-nuclear.org/info/inf100.html

If you look at the graph near the bottom, nuclear power releases less CO2 over its life than all other types of power shown. Your arguement is a non-starter in this case.

My understanding is that nuclear fission results in the least CO2 emissions per kW-hr, assuming its fuel comes from uranium deposits just like the ones we are mining now, which will be good for several more decades at current rates of use. After that we will have to start using less rich sites to get uranium, and the rate of CO2 emission starts going way up.

If we indulged Dr Buzzo's fantasy of nuclear reactors dotting the landscape, we'd be getting into the poorer deposits in a matter of one or two decades and at that point the major appeal of nuclear fission just vanishes.

The idea that building breeder reactors is going to cause nuclear weapon proliferation is also a bit of a stretch. If anyone thinks it is easy to quickly steal spent fuel...transport it to some remote place, quickly design a build a weapon and then deploy it, I really don't think they are hitting on all cylinders.

Nuke that straw man until it glows.

The proliferation risk comes from many nations who do not currently have nuclear weapons having a nice fat breeder reactor, and having to worry about what everybody else is doing with their breeder reactors. Every nation that has gone nuclear since the nuclear non-proliferation treaties were signed did so by running a civilian nuclear program and building nukes under the table, and if you give every second country breeder reactors it's just going to happen some more.

Yes, it's also conceivable that as a result of many more nations having a nuclear stockpile that one or more nukes could go astray and end up in the hands of terrorist groups, which is the scenario you seem to be worried about. I think it's a remote risk, but it's not going to make the world any safer to have more countries with nuclear weapons.

The nuclear choices are simple fission reactors, which the world does not have enough uranium to supply in the long term if we build too many more, or breeder reactors which are a recipe for further nuclear proliferation. Those are pretty unappealing choices to my mind. Whereas renewables might cost more, but they'll work for as long as the world keeps turning and you can't start a nuclear war with them.

 

[Lonewulf]

If we indulged Dr Buzzo's fantasy of nuclear reactors dotting the landscape, we'd be getting into the poorer deposits in a matter of one or two decades and at that point the major appeal of nuclear fission just vanishes

Right, and poorer deposits of coal is a MUCH better option.

 

[luddite]

Right, and poorer deposits of coal is a MUCH better option.

Nobody said that.

 

[Kevin_Lowe]

Give Lonewulf a break. At least he's not sitting around being sarcastic and not contributing at all to any sort of discussion. AKA, trolling.

 

[Lonewulf]

Give Lonewulf a break. At least he's not sitting around being sarcastic and not contributing at all to any sort of discussion. AKA, trolling.

Indeed.

So, Kevin, since you know so much...

Let's say that we don't follow through with Dr. Buzz0's fantasy of dotting the landscape with fission reactors. What is your solution?

Do we stick with coal as our main source of energy? Would that be better? Or do we start setting up renewables, enough to take up the slack?

If the latter, then what's the cost? What's the subsidies? Everything I've seen has put it as much higher in cost than nuclear power. Everything I've seen has shown that nuclear waste is overstated in danger (but if you really want to prove me wrong, then go ahead. I'm not going to believe you just because you say it is). You want to keep talking about "secondary" CO2 emissions, then fine. Demonstrate how nuclear emissions are so much higher than solar or wind mill production.

Convince me.

 

[luddite]

So I'm supposed to say that Chernobyl was worse than I really think it is? Isn't that being dishonest?

the people living in that area have no known problems

If people don't perceive a problem, I have low confidence that we'll be successful in preventing a similar accident in the future.

 

[Kevin_Lowe]

Indeed.

So, Kevin, since you know so much...

Let's say that we don't follow through with Dr. Buzz0's fantasy of dotting the landscape with fission reactors. What is your solution?

Do we stick with coal as our main source of energy? Would that be better? Or do we start setting up renewables, enough to take up the slack?

I think that has to be the way we go, barring a convenient technological development that changes the energy landscape significantly. We ought to cut down on our CO2 emissions significantly even if it slows global economic growth somewhat, and I don't think nukes are an acceptable solution, so that leaves renewables.

If the latter, then what's the cost? What's the subsidies? Everything I've seen has put it as much higher in cost than nuclear power.

Sure, but even if we are generous and allow nuclear fission another hundred years of good times at the current rate of use, that's not a long-term solution to our greenhouse gas problem. There just isn't enough high-grade ore to solve the problem, and breeder reactors are a bad idea for proliferation reasons.

The only way out is to tighten our belts a bit and go with renewables.

Everything I've seen has shown that nuclear waste is overstated in danger (but if you really want to prove me wrong, then go ahead. I'm not going to believe you just because you say it is). You want to keep talking about "secondary" CO2 emissions, then fine. Demonstrate how nuclear emissions are so much higher than solar or wind mill production.

Convince me.

We did this before. You made wild claims, when you were challenged on them you got difficult, and then a post or three later you tried to dump the burden of proof on me.

I have no idea what you mean by "overstated" in concrete terms. Who overstated it, and what did they overstate it to be? I've given you the physics already - nuclear fission waste contains radioactive contents with half-lives in the hundreds of years and hundreds of thousands of years. If it's not safe now it's not going to be safe in a thousand years. It's not going to leak out and destroy the world or spawn Godzilla, but if you are advocating making more of that stuff you should be advocating a plan to store that waste in such a way that it's not going to hurt anybody in the next few hundred thousand years. Yes, even if you could fit all of it on a plane or whatever other factoid is supposed to be reassuring. Figure out a way of making that plane stay up for a few hundred thousand years and I'll feel reassured.

 

[Lonewulf]

If people don't perceive a problem, I have low confidence that we'll be successful in preventing a similar accident in the future.

Sorry, but considering that modern building techniques don't allow for it, I don't agree.

I don't believe in being dishonest just to prevent some hypothetical future accident.

As for the people currently living there, I point you once more to here: http://www.spiegel.de/international/0,1518,412954,00.html

That has more to do with the long-term affects of living in the general area (assumedly without eating the vegetation or animals that were irradiated).

As for the number of people actually affected by Chernobyl shortly after the accident, that's a bit more concrete. As for people affected by longer-term effects of radiation, figures tend to fluctuate depending on who you speak to.