Merged nuclear power safe?

[Belz...]

I'm pretty sure in this thread people have lied about past accidents, and they may even believe what they said.

Which would mean they didn't lie. Do you even read your own posts ?

 

[Belz...]

Converting the worlds power plants to nuclear would cost at least 8,500,000,000,000,000 or 8,500 trillion dollars.

And who's fault is that, that we don't have those nukes already ?

There would be 50,000 places to guard to make sure nobody steals any material, blows anything up, or to make damn sure no natural disaster occurs.

Do you know how spent fuel works ?

Can you honestly tell me the world would be better off with 20,000 running reactors? In every country on earth?

Apparently.

 

[Belz...]

You want to show the world how safe things are? Go study Chernobyl.

Back to this ?

Maybe we should stop taking planes because some planes crash.

Better yet, cars are way more dangerous.

Hell, look at the PINTO ! They should've stopped making cars right there and then.

 

[shadron]

I already know he never published a peer reviewed article, much less did any research, did any experiments, nothing. He is a shill for industry and the whole issue is only on the table because some giant corporation, assisted by a corrupt government, ruined things with radiation.

Izat a fact?

 

[Dr.Sid]

Come on .. why argue ? Hormesis is hypothesis. It's not supported well enough to be accepted, and most people just want to be on the safe side.
Changing legal limits at the moment would be premature. On the other hand calling all hormesis a conspiracy of evil nuclear lobby is silly. It is not well supported, but there is also no facts against it. It's just poorly explored area.
Also don't forget that fear of radiation itself is harmful. Most of the fear comes from ignorance in this case. So instead of alarming people, educate them.

 

[r-j]

Education instead of propaganda? Wouldn't that be wondeful.

A scientific study of what radiation does, especially to animals, would go a long way towards understanding the dangers and risks of cesium from a reactor core. Or spent fuel.

Instead of lies and make believe stories, there would be science, based on evidence, which would work much better, especially if you want people to believe nuclear power is safe.

 

[shadron]

Education instead of propaganda? Wouldn't that be wondeful.

Well, that didn't last long. Nice try, Dr. Sid.

A scientific study of what radiation does, especially to animals, would go a long way towards understanding the dangers and risks of cesium from a reactor core. Or spent fuel.

Linsley, Gordon, "Radiation & the environment: Assessing effects on plants and animals", IAEA Bulletin #391, 1997, http://www.iaea.org/Publications/Magazines/Bulletin/Bull391/39102681720.pdf

Parsons, Peter, "Radiation Hormesis: Challenging LNT Theory via Ecological and Evolutionary Considerations", Health Physics Society, (Oct 1, 2001) http://www.groenerekenkamer.com/grkfiles/images/parsons.pdf

Here are two; google has many. Animal studies of radiation started in 1946 with the Crossroads/Able test, and have continued through the present day; it is probably the most studied aspect of radiation after the physics.

Instead of lies and make believe stories, there would be science, based on evidence, which would work much better, especially if you want people to believe nuclear power is safe.

Who's been providing citations here, r-j? Personally, I don't want people to believe it is safe. I want them to make a risk assessment on their own and to freely come to the same conclusions that I have. Absolutely safe is not a real-world scenario; relatively safe, as compared to the alternatives, is a possibility. You're living in an unsafe world; in your crusade to find safety in hypothetical situations, you're ignoring what is going on around you.

McBride, JP et al. “Radiological Impact of Airborne Effluents of Coal and Nuclear Plants,” Science 202, pp. 1045-1050, (Dec. 8, 1978) http://www.sciencemag.org/content/202/4372/1045.short

Might I add an admonishment of my own, since you've seen fit to do so? I'd like you to establish an argument and stick with it instead of flitting from one to another as each one gets researched, cited and quashed. You've done exactly that about 5 times since I joined this thread. Make a note: your current argument is that pro-nuke hasn't established and is not researching the human and animal effects of radiation in the environment; we're just generating propaganda.Then, please answer my partial rebuttal in this posting.

 

[r-j]

http://www.blackcatsystems.com/GM/safe_radiation.html

Let's say it's true, that very low levels of radiation are not harmful, at any level we can test for. Why wouldn't animal studies show this fact by now? (they would of course)

What is the real harmful level of radio-cesium? We know cigs increase the risk of cancer (and other horrible deaths), why can't we know the same thing for radio-cesium? And all the other pollutants from a reactot that blows up, melts down, or melts down then blows up?

Why is it some huge mystery? Why the push to make legal limits a thousand times higher?

Who profits?

 

[Dr.Sid]

Problem with cancer is that it depends heavily on species. Humans for example have several times longer lives then mice .. and some cancer types need 20 years to develop. So some kind of cancers can't be tested on animals. It can only be tested on humans. And guess what .. it is not done intentionally.
Lucky for us, at least as knowledge about radiation goes, there are some unintentional test subjects. Mostly people affected by bombs in Japan, and people affected by Chernobyl disaster.
People affected by bombs mostly got large doses in short time. There is quite a lot data about it .. but it does not cover low doses where hormesis is supposed to act, and AFAIK it is not related to individual isotopes. Anyway current linear no treshold models are mostly based on these data. And just for comparison, if you survive 50/50 dose of radiation, there is 10% (IIRC) chance of developing some kind of cancer. IMHO it surprisingly low figure .. and with lower doses, the risk goes down in linear fashion.
Chernobyl is much more related to hormesis. Some kind of cancers in areas around Chernobyl have been studied. For example thyorid cancer is rather frequent there, especially in people who were then children. Relation of iodine isotopes to this kind of cancer is well known. On the other hand, no comparable study at such detail was done anywhere else. While rate in this study is higher then common rate of treated thyorid cancer, these cancers is often minor, non lethal, and is not noticed.
Some types of cancer could not be effectively evaluated just yet, cause they take long time to develop, like bone cancer. Such cases should just start appear now.
I know no other study focused on some special type of cancer. There are some minor studies, which compare people around Chernobyl with general population .. ans there is no detectable bias in any disease. And even if linear model is right, we would be talking about tens of percent of increase, with doses absorbed by people living next to Chernobyl.
So basically there is just too little data. Chernobyl victims could be studied MUCH more .. but they are not. But then it's Russia (yeah, I know, Ukraine and Belarus). For having more first hand data, you need serious nuclear disaster on the West. Fukushima could actually help, but unfortunately (for the data) people were evacuated rather fast.
There is however different, non direct, approach. There is known correlation between DNA damage and cancer probability. DNA damage can be tested instantly via blood tests. And that's where hormesis theory comes from. People in areas with large background radiation have healthier DNA then people from low radiation regions. It's like their immunity system can fix their DNA better. But it might not be the only reason. They might also be genetically selected over centuries. This too needs a lot more study, but there too are limits as for what are the causes of this effect. Easiest way would be to pick large group of people, and iradiate half of them, then study the tiny statistical differences (and yes, we are talking in percents at max). But that is just not going to happen.
Hormesis or not, I'm still afraid of different sources of cancer, or death. Smoking people should not care at all .. and even people visiting smoking pubs are probably taking more risk then people from Chernobyl vicinity took, based even on current linear models.
Hormesis theory is just too small part of the problem. If it is correct, or if it is not, will not affect answer to the question: is nuclear power safe ? The difference would be just too small.

 

[shadron]

http://www.blackcatsystems.com/GM/safe_radiation.htmlWhy is it some huge mystery? Why the push to make legal limits a thousand times higher?

Who profits?

Have you ever asked yourself who profits by keeping it higher than it needs to be?

 

[shadron]

Hormesis theory is just too small part of the problem. If it is correct, or if it is not, will not affect answer to the question: is nuclear power safe ? The difference would be just too small.

I don't get your ending conclusion here. If examining Chernobyl and Fugushima victims shows that hormesis is correct, and limits of absorption in the general populace can be raised by a factor of ten (let alone the thousand that Allison recommends), that has a huge effect on the necessary extent of the exclusion zones that were established in both accidents. That effect is "just too small"?

Then again, most medical examinations of both accidents conclude that by far the major effect that the accident has had on people is that of stress caused by horror, displacement, despair and the perception of neglect by the rest of society. If these were ameliorated by small displacements and less dread of the unknown, would not that be a major win?

 

[Mark6]

Then again, most medical examinations of both accidents conclude that by far the major effect that the accident has had on people is that of stress caused by horror, displacement, despair and the perception of neglect by the rest of society. If these were ameliorated by small displacements and less dread of the unknown, would not that be a major win?

If there is ever a "dirty bomb" attack or some other MINOR radioactivity release which results my house/property becomes worthless, I will sue every publisher/filmmaker/whatever who screams the dangers of radiation. Ultimately, they would be responsible for my house becoming "untouchable".

 

[Dr.Sid]

I don't get your ending conclusion here. If examining Chernobyl and Fugushima victims shows that hormesis is correct, and limits of absorption in the general populace can be raised by a factor of ten (let alone the thousand that Allison recommends), that has a huge effect on the necessary extent of the exclusion zones that were established in both accidents. That effect is "just too small"?

I mean .. even in linear model, these doses are supposed to increase risk of cancer of less them 1%. Sure, it will be detectable in city with million people. Sure it sucks when someone close to you dies on cancer. But there is ton of things that increase cancer risk of 1%, and people just don't care about them, smoking (including passive) being one of them.
Unfortunately even if legislation will increase the limits, it will not stop people from being scared. It will not stop fear mongers. Every case of cancer in such area will be made connected to radiation. It's happening even now.
Even now levels of radiation normal where I live (Czech Republic) are triggering alarms and media response in Japan. Changing legal limits will have little and slow impact of how public perceives radiation. As long as people are ignorant and only understand 'radiation=cancer and malformed babies', every leak will be publicity disaster. Every change in legislation will be political suicide.

 

[SpacemanSpiff]

Education instead of propaganda? Wouldn't that be wondeful.

Here is a fun and educational chart about radiation:

http://xkcd.com/radiation/

 

[shadron]

I mean .. even in linear model, these doses are supposed to increase risk of cancer of less them 1%. <snip> As long as people are ignorant and only understand 'radiation=cancer and malformed babies', every leak will be publicity disaster. Every change in legislation will be political suicide.

I take your meaning, and agree. That is an educational problem, which, unfortunately, was not well handled by the AEC, the military or the industry in the first 40 years of the atomic age. One would hope that both have learned better, but even on "our" side there are doubts.

 

[r-j]

Not that I blame you for not reading, but even so.

"proposed that the current annual radiation dose limit be raised 1000-fold"

So it would be OK for workers to get 50 Sieverts a year exposure. That sounds good.

In emergencies they could get 250 Sv, what could be wrong with that?

Of course the http://xkcd.com/radiation/ chart says 8 Sv is fatal, but that is wrong, according to the experts.

Here is a fun and educational chart about radiation:

http://xkcd.com/radiation/

 

[Sword_Of_Truth]

Rather than spin it as radiation is benign, even safe, why not tell the truth? It's because everybody ran away, and is avoiding the radiation, which was CAUSED by nuclear reactors breaking and leaking. Why not tell the truth?

Your concession that there have been no radiation casualties at Fukushima is noted.

Such absurd propaganda is insulting to the real human beings suffering right now.

Are you a nuclear engineer? No. Have you ever worked at a nuclear reactor? Of course not. You don't have the education or experience to determine whether Dr. Cuttler and Dr. Rockwell are being absurd.

There is real human suffering going on right now. But none of it is due to radiation poisoning.

I would punch this dirt bag in the face if I saw him.

Do you actually know anything about radiation and nuclear accidents? Of course not. But you act like you know something when you don't, and then you try to degrade threaten people with physical violence who do. Pathetic really.

Your own words... adjusted to reflect your declining standards.

 

[r-j]

Don't try and spin my words. You still haven't provided any evidence for you views.

 

[Sword_Of_Truth]

I already know he never published a peer reviewed article, much less did any research, did any experiments, nothing.

You are perceptive enough to have deduced that "peer reviewed" has an important meaning. But there your understanding comes to an end. You're trying to use the term as a debate-stopping sledge hammer when really its more like a surgeons scalpel.

Not to concede that your limited searches have been accurate, but peer-reviewed articles and papers aren't necessary to establish ones authority and expertise in a given field.

Shadron already linked several sites that contain Dr. Rockwells biography. In addition to what he linked, I would point out that the Radiation Protection and Shielding Division of the American Nuclear Society named their lifetime achievement award in Dr. Rockwells honor. The ANS effectively claims that if you want to build your career on knowing where radiation protection is needed and how much, Dr. Rockwell is the man you want to emulate.

Whether you, in your limited capacity, found any articles by Dr. Rockwell is irrelevant. His expertise in the subject being discussed is firmly established.

So, we get an unsourced quote from somebody who is supposed to be an engineer, regarding health risk. No peer reviewed science. Not even a link to where he is supposed to have said it.

You're right, for once. I did not source or link to Dr. Cuttlers remarks, nor will I. It was posted to the private newsgroup of the Canadian Nuclear Society - Alberta Chapter. You can gain access and see Dr. Cuttlers remarks for yourself by ponying up the 200$ CDN annual membership fee (Canadian citizenship or residency, education or employment in nuclear related fields is not required for membership).

In 2009, Dr. Cuttler presented the paper he co-wrote with Dr. Myron Pollycove (Visiting Medical Fellow, US Nuclear Regulatory Commission) Nuclear Energy and Health: And the Benefits of Low-Dose Radiation Hormesis, at the Annual Conference of the Canadian Nuclear Society in Calgary, Alberta. Dr. Cutter's biography states:

In 1974, he joined Atomic Energy of Canada Limited and led the teams that designed and provided the reactor control, safety system and radiation monitoring instrumentation for the CANDU 6 reactors at Pt. Lepreau (New Brunswick), Gentilly-2 (Quebec) and Embalse (Argentina) and for the reactors of the Pickering B and Bruce B stations in Ontario, while providing support to the Douglas Point, Pickering A and Bruce A stations.​

You asked for nuclear engineers. You not only got nuclear engineers, you got the ones who specialize in radiation protection and monitoring. Not the guys who design cooling systems, not the guys who build fuel assemblies, but the ones who have the exact experience necessary to determine the habitability of the Fukushima exclusion zone.

 

[r-j]

Still ignoring my simple point that raising the safe limits a thousand times is ridiculous.