A rebuttal of an antinuke broadsheet

[shadron]

I've been engaged in writing up a point-by-point rebuttal for a broadsheet from the NIRS entitled Routine Radioactive Releases from Nuclear Reactors - It Doesn't Take an Accident. I'm fairly confident about the science, but not being a nuke myself, and considerably self-taught since my two classes in it in undergrad, I'd like to run it by some of the more experienced members here and get reactions and corrections. The original was about two pages long; it is now going on eight pages, and I'm wondering that, while I want to be more explanatory than the original author was, that I'm getting too deep. I include a lot of wikipedia-like links on various technical points and jargon. Anyway, I'll place it in eight parts.

I certainly realize there are some here who won't sympathize with my arguments; all the better, I invite comments as well as more slugfests on nuclear power. Combining business with pleasure, so to speak.

Note: superscripts are in the original for isotope designations like ¹³⁵Xe. They didn't translate during the cut/paste.

 

[shadron]

Routine Radioactive Releases from Nuclear Reactors - It Doesn't Take an Accident, I

[FONT=&quot]ROUTINE RADIOACTIVE RELEASES FROM NUCLEAR REACTORS -[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]IT DOESN’T TAKE AN ACCIDENT[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot] [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]What you are not supposed to know (providing you haven’t already read the relevant Wikipedia articles or others of the hundreds of sources about radioactivity which are freely available. This line in itself spells “conspiracy theory”, with the reader obviously threatened with being cast in the sheeple role):[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot] [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]1) It doesn’t take an accident for a nuclear power plant to release radioactivity into our air, water[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]and soil. All it takes is the plant’s everyday routine operation, and federal regulations permit[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]these radioactive releases.[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot] [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]Yes? So? Who is it that is naive enough to think that the absolute entrapment of all sources of radioactivity around a nuclear power plant is a required or necessary thing? It sounds like a strawman argument set up by the author which he can destroy, and claim victory over the arch-techies and their political bosses.[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot] [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]OK, the point of the title of this document has been made, and even been stipulated by myself. What do you suppose the rest of this document will be about?[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot] [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]2) Radioactivity is measured in "curies." A large medical center, with as many as 1000[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]laboratories in which radioactive materials are used, may have a combined inventory of only[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]about two curies. In contrast, an average operating nuclear power reactor will have[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]approximately 16 billion curies in its reactor core. This is the equivalent long-lived radioactivity[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]of at least 1,000 Hiroshima bombs.[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot] [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]Consult [/FONT][FONT=&quot]http://hps.org/hpspublications/articles/dosesfrommedicalradiation.html[/FONT][FONT=&quot]. In it you will see charts of some of the common uses for [/FONT][FONT=&quot]radioactive agents in medicine[/FONT][FONT=&quot], and you can see that typical uses range from 0.015 to as high as 50 [/FONT][FONT=&quot]millicuries (mCi)[/FONT][FONT=&quot] per treatment, in one case 150 millicuries. Such individual doses would require a treatment/diagnostic center “with as many as 1000 laboratories in which radioactive materials are used” to have a somewhat larger inventory than is indicated in this paragraph.[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot] [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]Curies[/FONT][FONT=&quot] as a measure of radioactivity doesn’t take into account many variables which touch on how the atom affects a person. A better measure is called “[/FONT][FONT=&quot]effective dose[/FONT][FONT=&quot]” (in units of [/FONT][FONT=&quot]sieverts[/FONT][FONT=&quot]), which measures how much radioactivity actually changes a human being; after all, the radioactivity of a nuclear fuel pellet beyond human reach (say, at the bottom of the ocean) isn’t going to cause any iota of human suffering, even though it might contain 20 curies of radioactivity. I encourage a look at the chart at [/FONT][FONT=&quot]http://xkcd.com/radioactivity[/FONT][FONT=&quot], which shows in terms of effective doses what the numbers really mean.[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot] [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]I have no argument with the rest of the paragraph. Yes, the amount of radiation in a reactor is far higher than in a bomb; you don’t have to carry the reactor in an airplane. On the other hand bombs don’t have containment structures, either. This is just a blatant attempt at [/FONT][FONT=&quot]guilt by association[/FONT][FONT=&quot]. [/FONT]

 

[shadron]

Routine Radioactive Releases from N'r Reactors - It Doesn't Take an Accident, II

[FONT=&quot]3) A reactor’s fuel rods, pipes, tanks and valves can leak. Mechanical failure and human error[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]can also cause leaks. As a nuclear plant ages, so does its equipment - and leaks generally[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]increase.[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]Yes, it’s true. They do. That is one of the characteristics by which the age of a [/FONT][FONT=&quot]reactor’s useful life[/FONT][FONT=&quot] is determined and decommissioning dates are set. This was also true in the 19th century when water boilers were first constructed. How many [/FONT][FONT=&quot]boiler explosions[/FONT][FONT=&quot] do you hear about lately?[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]4) Some contaminated water is intentionally removed from the reactor vessel to reduce the[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]amount of the radioactive and corrosive chemicals that damage valves and pipes. The water is[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]filtered and then either recycled back into the cooling system or released into the environment.[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]This complaint is about the [/FONT][FONT=&quot]reactor’s[/FONT][FONT=&quot] primary cycle (red in the diagram on the page) – the water which is directly heated in the reactor core and then heats the secondary water in a steam generator.[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]First of all, the physics of water is such that it is very difficult to make radioactive. To make something radioactive itself, rather than simply having embedded radioactive substances within it, requires that it be [/FONT][FONT=&quot]activated[/FONT][FONT=&quot] by absorbing neutrons produced in the reactor. Unlike many atoms, which will become radioactive through the capture of a single neutron, each hydrogen atom in water must capture two neutrons to be converted into radioactive tritium (¹H + 2 n -->[/FONT][FONT=&quot] ³[/FONT][FONT=&quot]H), and the oxygen atom must capture three neutrons to become radioactive [/FONT][FONT=&quot](¹⁶[/FONT][FONT=&quot]O + 3 n -->[/FONT][FONT=&quot] ¹⁹[/FONT][FONT=&quot]O). Each capture by a particular atom is a low probability event considering the volume of water used, so the capture of two in the same atomic nucleus is an extremely low probability event. It can be made even lower by periodically replacing the water that has become singly activated before it can catch that second neutron, and that is what is being referred to here. The water is rather more highly treated than just being “filtered”, although that is part of the processing as well. The water that has been singly activated is called “[/FONT][FONT=&quot]heavy water[/FONT][FONT=&quot]” because of the extra neutron in one of the hydrogen atoms, and occurs in a small predictable amount in well and rain water naturally. It is not radioactive and has little effect on life in normally occurring amounts, even from nuclear plant effluent.[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]Other contaminants in the water may be from lubricants, elements leached from the piping, and so on. Again, these are normal; they occur in the plumbing of everyone’s homes; indeed, in much higher concentrations in homes due to the expense and cleanliness required in the plants and their construction.[/FONT]

 

[shadron]

Routine Radioactive Releases from N'r Reactors - It Doesn't Take an Accident, III

[FONT=&quot]5) A typical 1000-megawatt pressurized-water reactor (with a cooling tower) takes in 20,000[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]gallons of river, lake or ocean water per minute for cooling, circulates it through a 50-mile maze[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]of pipes, returns 5,000 gallons per minute to the same body of water, and releases the remainder[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]to the atmosphere as vapor. A 1000-megawatt reactor without a cooling tower takes in even more[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]water--as much as one-half million gallons per minute. The discharge water is contaminated with[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]radioactive elements in amounts that are not precisely known or knowable, but are biologically[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]active.[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]I agree with this down to… woops, wait a minute, it’s “not knowable” what the discharge contamination might be, but it’s [/FONT][FONT=&quot]biologically active[/FONT][FONT=&quot] (meaning, I presume, radioactive enough to harm something, as opposed, for instance, to being 5 degrees warmer or such)? It sounds to me like the author is trying to pin a single circumstance he has heard of, or perhaps only wishful thinking, into an overwhelming indictment of all nuclear plants that use water (which is, of course, all of them). I’m going to need some explicit, [/FONT][FONT=&quot]non-weasel worded[/FONT][FONT=&quot] statement and evidence of that, please. A bald insinuation just won’t do.[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]6) Some radioactive fission gases, stripped from the reactor cooling water, are contained in decay[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]tanks for days before being released into the atmosphere through filtered rooftop vents. Some[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]gases leak into the power plant buildings’ interiors and are released during periodic "purges" and[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]"ventings." These airborne gases contaminate not only the air, but also soil and water.[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]It sounds like we’re talking about the filtrants from the primary cycle here, presumably only the gases as the solids are kept within the [/FONT][FONT=&quot]fuel rods[/FONT][FONT=&quot]. These gases would be krypton, xenon and radon, because other gases like oxygen and nitrogen aren’t [/FONT][FONT=&quot]fission products[/FONT][FONT=&quot] (neither is radon, but we’ll accept it here anyway). These are [/FONT][FONT=&quot]noble gases[/FONT][FONT=&quot]; they normally do not combine with anything, even themselves, as oxygen and nitrogen do. They are individual atoms of each gas, radioactive not through activation but rather caused by the fissioning of uranium. Considering each component separately:[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]135[/FONT][FONT=&quot]Xe[/FONT][FONT=&quot] has a half life of 9.2 hours. Holding Xe in a tank for 4 days [/FONT][FONT=&quot]reduces[/FONT][FONT=&quot] its considerable radioactivity level by 1500 times; in a week, by 300,000 times. Xenon is a noble gas; it doesn’t react chemically with anything. It will disburse freely in the atmosphere, becoming more and more diffuse over time. Its radioactivity is diluted in general by the cube of the distance it travels. If it is breathed in, it is breathed right back out again and will not combine to remain in the body; it doesn’t get captured by hemoglobin like oxygen does. It decays into [/FONT][FONT=&quot]135[/FONT][FONT=&quot]Cs[/FONT][FONT=&quot], a somewhat less radioactive solid with a half-life of 30 years. The resulting cesium isn’t particulated but rather divided into single atoms; breathing it in isn’t a direct hazard like breathing in plutonium particles, but it can migrate into the bloodstream from there and replace potassium in muscles, and therefore will concentrate there, but it will also be excreted with a [/FONT][FONT=&quot]biological half-life[/FONT][FONT=&quot] of 1-3 months. Prussian Blue is a drug which will bind with cesium and accelerate its excretion.[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]So, the hazard scenario is this: if it’s released to the air, it disburses, but soon changes into radioactive cesium spread far in the environment and now chemically and biologically active. That makes it a biohazard, in fact the largest hazard at Chernobyl after the first year, and will be for up to about 300 years as it decays progressively into stable barium.[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]Holding it “in a tank for days” gets rid of the greatest threat in the hazard scenario. After a week virtually all of it is then cesium, contained in the tank, which can then be filtered from the water before it is discharged. It is a good and effective practice.[/FONT]

 

[shadron]

Routine Radioactive Releases from N'r Reactors - It Doesn't Take an Accident, IV

[FONT=&quot]85[/FONT][FONT=&quot]Kr[/FONT][FONT=&quot] is also a noble gas, with a half-life of 10 years. That means it will normally go its disbursing way for an average of ten years before decaying into 85Rubidium, which is stable. In fact, the concentration of 85Kr in the atmosphere is used as a measure of the atmospheric mixing.[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot] [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]From Wikipedia: “[/FONT]About 5 megacuries of the isotope [85Kr] was released into the atmosphere as a result of nuclear weapons tests between 1945 and the end of atmospheric testing in 1962. The 1979 accident at the Three Mile Island nuclear power plant released about 50 kilocuries of 85Kr into the atmosphere and the Chernobyl accident released about 5 megacuries. The atmospheric concentration of 85Kr peaked in around 1970, when it reached around 10 pCi/m3. [A pCi is a picocurie, a millionth millionth of a curie.][FONT=&quot][/FONT]
[FONT=&quot] [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]Finally we have [/FONT][FONT=&quot]radon[/FONT][FONT=&quot], which isn’t a fission product but rather a link in the [/FONT][FONT=&quot]decay chain[/FONT][FONT=&quot] of many isotopes, such as uranium, plutonium, radium and other heavy actinides. It is the most common radioactive element of everyone’s common environment, as it emanates from igneous rocks (granite, basalt), clays, and natural and man-made water wells. It is ubiquitous because uranium, radium and thorium are ubiquitous components of almost all rocks since the earth was formed, and the [/FONT][FONT=&quot]actinides[/FONT][FONT=&quot] became sealed in the rocks and began decaying. Again, it is a noble gas and will disburse into the atmosphere. Its half life is four days, so it is intense but short lived. It has become a hazard for civilized mankind as we have learned how to build air-tight buildings on bedrocks from which it springs and in which it can accumulate. Basement ventilation is advised.[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot] [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]While we’re at it, let’s discuss [/FONT][FONT=&quot]tritium[/FONT][FONT=&quot]. It is a form of hydrogen gas in which two additional neutrons have been captured; the activation product of hydrogen we mentioned above. It is sometimes created in reactors, usually by activation of the boric acid used in the primary coolant water to provide control over neutron abundance. Tritium is chemically hydrogen, so unlike radon and the others above it is not a noble gas; it will quite readily join with an oxygen and another hydrogen atom to create water. As radioactive materials go it isn’t normally too worrisome. It is non-clumping, coming as individual water molecules. Its released beta energy is low, a factor of a hundred below most beta emissions. It remains in the environment quite a while; its half life is about 12 years, but its biological half life in humans is only 9 days, and it commonly washes out of atmospheric gas into the soil within a couple of days, like all water vapor.[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot] [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]As for the ventings and purgings, as we have explored here, they are generally safe for radon and krypton as long as no one is in the immediate vicinity; the gases will rapidly disburse into the atmosphere without attaching to other objects in any way. Xenon is also safe as long as it is handled properly as discussed above. As for “the airborne gases contaminate not only air but soil and water”, it is true they can become dissolved in water, but if they are released through a high stack that is not a threat, as it will disburse widely before encountering soil or water. In water in particular, simple [/FONT][FONT=&quot]aeration[/FONT][FONT=&quot] will release any dissolved noble gases, just as it does carbon dioxide in soda water.[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot] [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]7) Radioactive releases from a nuclear power reactor’s routine operation often are not fully[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]detected or reported. Accidental releases may not be completely verified or documented.[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot] [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]Yes, [/FONT][FONT=&quot]it has happened[/FONT][FONT=&quot], and the corporate perpetrators have been judged and fined. I don’t pretend that all [/FONT][FONT=&quot]nuclear oversight[/FONT][FONT=&quot] is perfect, and also admit to a certain bureaucratic laxity in the regulatory agencies, detected and corrected. Maintenance of a proper regulatory posture is a question of political will. The last sentence makes a prediction based on a jaundiced view of past performance.[/FONT]

 

[shadron]

Routine Radioactive Releases from N'r Reactors - It Doesn't Take an Accident, V

[FONT=&quot]8) Accurate, economically-feasible filtering and monitoring technologies do not exist for some of[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]the major reactor by-products, such as radioactive hydrogen (tritium) and noble gases, such as[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]krypton and xenon. Some liquids and gases are retained in tanks so that the shorter-lived[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]radioactive materials can break down before the batch is released to the environment.[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]Can you substantiate this, particularly in the realm of [/FONT][FONT=&quot]monitoring technologies[/FONT][FONT=&quot]? I rather think that if we can monitor [/FONT][FONT=&quot]135[/FONT][FONT=&quot]iodine[/FONT][FONT=&quot], a beta decay species (which gives rise to 135xenon, BTW) from Fukushima in Sacramento (indeed individuals can do that, let alone government agencies) then we can do so for all other beta decays (almost all fission products). Tritium is also a beta decay, but the problem is that it is so unenergetic as to run under the sensitivity of normal methods, but then that’s what makes it so innocuous as a health hazad, too. [/FONT][FONT=&quot]Geiger counters[/FONT][FONT=&quot] for measuring alpha decay were invented before WWII. Neutrons are a toughy, but they only occur inside functioning reactors and bombs. Gamma rays are difficult to detect, but generally happen only in the presence of the other sorts of decays. So what is it, exactly, that we are unable to detect?[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]Your last sentence makes it sound like a sin to store short-lived species while they decay. You’d rather they were disbursed?[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]9) Government regulations allow radioactive water to be released to the environment containing[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]"permissible" levels of contamination. Permissible does not mean safe. [/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]Recognizing that working with high energies to create electrical power for everyone’s use is an inherently risky business, how can one draw a hard line about what is safe and what is not? You’ve done nothing more with this line than to demarcate the difference between living in an industrial society and living in a padded cell in a cave. Witness the radioactive contents of the coal we burn; [/FONT][FONT=&quot]consult any source you want[/FONT][FONT=&quot] about the content of the smoke. Witness the inherent unsafe conditions in which [/FONT][FONT=&quot]LPG tankers[/FONT][FONT=&quot] are docked and unloaded across the river from New York City. Every day, in every way, risks are part of our lives. That is the difference between [/FONT][FONT=&quot]permissible[/FONT][FONT=&quot] and safe.[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]10) Detectors at reactors are set to allow contaminated water to be released, unfiltered, if below[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]"permissible" legal levels.[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]Ditto above. Even shipping [/FONT][FONT=&quot]flour[/FONT][FONT=&quot] is dangerous; a [/FONT][FONT=&quot]monsterous explosion[/FONT][FONT=&quot] and fire in Minneapolis was caused by that simple source. Since [/FONT][FONT=&quot]poisons (of all kinds) in water supplies[/FONT][FONT=&quot] are present, they all are variations on this theme. If the levels are too high, then they need to be lowered.[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]If you don’t like the permissible limits set in law, get them changed. Using them as a rhetorical bludgeon indicates political laziness.[/FONT]

 

[shadron]

Routine Radioactive Releases from N'r Reactors - It Doesn't Take an Accident, VI

[FONT=&quot]11) The Nuclear Regulatory Commission relies upon self-reporting and computer modeling from[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]reactor operators to track radioactive releases and their projected dispersion. A significant[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]portion of the environmental monitoring data is extrapolated – virtual, not real.[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot] [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]First of all, self-reporting is not the only way in which these rules are enforced. There are also automated means, and the occasional[/FONT][FONT=&quot] inspector from the NRC[/FONT][FONT=&quot] or from the owner’s own auditing contractor are there as well.[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot] [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]As for [/FONT][FONT=&quot]modeling[/FONT][FONT=&quot]: so? In what way does this affect the reality of the result? Modeling is common in all industrial matters; nuclear power is not different in that regard. The [/FONT][FONT=&quot]weathermen[/FONT][FONT=&quot] (including hurricane and tornado forecasting and tracking) use it, [/FONT][FONT=&quot]chicken production[/FONT][FONT=&quot] on large farms and on the national level use it, [/FONT][FONT=&quot]shore protection[/FONT][FONT=&quot] uses it, [/FONT][FONT=&quot]nuclear bomb technology[/FONT][FONT=&quot] uses it, banks use it to model their [/FONT][FONT=&quot]cash flows[/FONT][FONT=&quot]. It is a hugely successful part of our society since even before we had computers to crunch the numbers. This paragraph smacks of disdain for science and science’s methods. The [/FONT][FONT=&quot]afore-mention cave[/FONT][FONT=&quot] waits at the end of this road.[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot] [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]“Extrapolation” is a very crude understanding of the way in which modeling actually works. It is used to imply inaccuracy (see the second and third definitions in the citation above), but without really risking an argument. Cheesy.[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot] [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]12) Accurate accounting of all radioactive wastes released to the air, water and soil from the[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]entire reactor fuel production system is simply not available. The system includes uranium mines[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]and mills, chemical conversion, enrichment and fuel fabrication plants, nuclear power reactors,[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]and radioactive waste storage pools, casks, and trenches. Increasing economic pressures to reduce costs, due to the deregulation of the electric power industry, could further reduce the already unreliable monitoring and reporting of radioactive releases. Deferred maintenance can increase the radioactivity released - and the risks.[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot] [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]This is true. But once again, it has been true as well for other kinds of power generation. Coal mining has resulted in massive floods, poisoning of water sources, denuding of whole counties, and that is just because of coal’s chemical properties. No one asks about its radioactivity, and what happens to it after it is burned. [/FONT][FONT=&quot]Fly ash[/FONT][FONT=&quot] is more radioactive than uranium ore, but again, no one seems to care about that, and the reason is that it doesn’t affect most people, just as the miscellaneous activity surrounding nuclear power generation doesn’t affect most people. The difference is that the very words nuclear and radioactive have become monstrously tainted in our society, even in the abject absence of immediate damage caused by it. [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot] [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]Unjustifiably deferred maintenance (in the pursuit of profit) can also [/FONT][FONT=&quot]derail trains[/FONT][FONT=&quot] and cause [/FONT][FONT=&quot]airplanes to drop out of the sky[/FONT][FONT=&quot] – so we handle them, and sue the owners.[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot] [/FONT]

 

[shadron]

Routine Radioactive Releases from N'r Reactors - It Doesn't Take an Accident, VII

[FONT=&quot]13) Many of the reactor’s radioactive by-products continue giving off radioactive particles and[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]rays for enormously long periods – described in terms of "half-lives." A radioactive material[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]gives off hazardous radiation for at least ten half-lives. One of the radioactive isotopes of iodine[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot](iodine- 129) has a half-life of 16 million years; technetium-99 = 211,000 years; and plutonium-[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]239 = 24,000 years. Xenon-135, a noble gas, decays into cesium-135, an isotope with a 2.3[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]million-year half-life.[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot] [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]Yup, and a lot of them have [/FONT][FONT=&quot]short half-lives[/FONT][FONT=&quot], too. [/FONT][FONT=&quot]135[/FONT][FONT=&quot]Iodine[/FONT][FONT=&quot] has a half-life of less than 7 hours; it’s nasty stuff for a couple of weeks after the bombing/accident. 135Xe , which you mentioned but didn’t give a hlf-life for, is 9 hours. Consider this: if you have 64 atoms of nnnxyz, then after one half life you have 32 left. That means that 32 have decayed providing the bad effects that radiation causes. It should, from that, be obvious that a long half-life is not very desirable from a waste impoundment point of view, but also that the material has very low radioactive intensity. 238U, aka [/FONT][FONT=&quot]depleted uranium[/FONT][FONT=&quot], has a half life of one quarter of the age of the universe. It stands to reason, then, that its radioactive intensity is extremely low, so low that in its pure form, it is 13 times less radioactive than its own ore, which has other elements mixed in. It is a [/FONT][FONT=&quot]worse heavy metal poison[/FONT][FONT=&quot] (on a par with arsenic) than a radioactive one.[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot] [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]At the other end of the spectrum is a material like 95Zr (half life of 64 days), which was the worst [/FONT][FONT=&quot]radioactive contaminant at Chernobyl[/FONT][FONT=&quot] – for a couple of months. Then it was gone, now 135cesium has taken its place.[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot] [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]So, a long half-life means that the material is not very radioactive, and the inverse.[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot] [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]Then again, pointing out what was pointed out above assumes your reactor waste includes those long lived materials. There are reactor designs whose wastes are the fission products only, and none of the long-lived transuranic materials are such a storage problem. The class of reactors called ”molten salt reactors” have the ability to fission the long-life transuranics to exhaustion, leaving only the fission products. The hundreds of thousands of years that normal reactor waste requires to become “clean” is done with fission products in 300 years.[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot] [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]Why aren’t we using these kinds of reactors? The reason is mainly political – [/FONT][FONT=&quot]reactors were first designed to create plutonium for bombs[/FONT][FONT=&quot], not generate electricity. When the latter started becoming important, then the decision was made to continue down the path which was already explored, that of [/FONT][FONT=&quot]solid fueled uranium reactors[/FONT][FONT=&quot]. Lately, however, many engineers are coming to an appreciation of the MSR design, and it is one of the [/FONT][FONT=&quot]Generation 4 reactors[/FONT][FONT=&quot] types now under study.[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot] [/FONT]

 

[shadron]

Routine Radioactive Releases from N'r Reactors - It Doesn't Take an Accident, VIII

[FONT=&quot]14) It is scientifically established that low-level radiation damages tissues, cells, DNA and other[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]vital molecules – causing programmed cell death (apoptosis), genetic mutations, cancers,[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]leukemia, birth defects, and reproductive, immune and endocrine system disorders.[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]While many safety agencies have conservatively, and rightly, demanded adherence to the worst-case, [/FONT][FONT=&quot]linear no-threshold model[/FONT][FONT=&quot] of biological damage in the absence of better data, there is growing evidence, much of it from Chernobyl, and more expected to come in from Fukushima, that the concept of of a less harmful relationship between low dose and effects is possible, or even [/FONT][FONT=&quot]hormesis[/FONT][FONT=&quot] is likely to emerge from the data. The UNSCEAR has indicated that it is now less sure about the LNT model than it was in previous editions. The [/FONT][FONT=&quot]French Academy of Sciences[/FONT][FONT=&quot]-[/FONT][FONT=&quot]National Academy of Medicine[/FONT][FONT=&quot] has rejected LNT as the correct model, stating that its only valid use is regulatory because of its ease in administration. [/FONT][FONT=&quot]Many researchers considering Chernobyl have gotten rather passionate about its existence.[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]Under [/FONT][FONT=&quot]hormesis[/FONT][FONT=&quot], at low values of radioactivity (in the neighborhood of normal background levels), the body’s repair mechanisms may provide positive effects for self-repair.[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot][I can’t help noting that the original author, after bashing those agencies, such as the NRC, for “permissible over safe” rules above, is perfectly willing to join with the agency when it agrees, rather than disagrees, with his position. That’s generally called, uhh, [/FONT][FONT=&quot]hypocrisy[/FONT][FONT=&quot].][/FONT]


[FONT=&quot]A final word. I have placed a lot of links in my text to supporting literature. No doubt someone will notice a predilection toward use of Wikipedia for many of these, and sneeringly reply that my links aren’t worth following. I’ll point out that, as opposed to political controversy and personalities, [/FONT][FONT=&quot]technical matters in Wikipedia[/FONT][FONT=&quot] are very well covered IMHO, and the text is quite well reviewed and edited. Secondly, there are few sources of information that include [/FONT][FONT=&quot]meta-analysis of the basic article[/FONT][FONT=&quot], in the form of Wikipedia’s talk pages, nor insist on listing [/FONT][FONT=&quot]references of quality[/FONT][FONT=&quot]. So keep your sneer to yourself.[/FONT]



[FONT=&quot]THIS INFORMATION SHEET IS INTENDED FOR REPRINTING AND, THEREFORE, IS NOT[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]COPYRIGHTED. INDEED.[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]Nuclear Information and Resource Service (NIRS)[/FONT]

 

[jj]

I have one general comment. You mean "dispersed" where you say 'disbursed'.

Disbursed means "money handed out" more or less.

 

[Cuddles]

Looks pretty good to me. A couple of spelling mistakes here and there, but I can't see any obvious problems. Good luck getting any anti-nukers to listen.

 

[Ziggurat]

The technical stuff looks fine, but a note about the writing. When engaged in direct debate, there's a strong temptation to be combative with your opponents, and there are parts of your response which adopt such a tone. I find myself doing that quite frequently on this forum, it's often hard to not show your anger when you feel like your opponents are lying, and it's not necessarily the wrong approach. But it depends very much on who the audience is. I suspect that your true audience isn't the authors, whom I'm guessing aren't going to be engaging with you directly in any sort of back-and-forth, or even other pro-nuclear people, but with third parties who aren't at all familiar with this material or even the debate itself. And for them, I think a non-confrontational style is better, even if the confrontation expressed isn't between you and the reader.

You and I know that the anti-nuke folks are being dishonest, but don't make that part of your argument. Because if the question for the reader becomes one of who is being honest and who isn't, well, a common reaction is simply to stop trusting anybody and tune out completely. Keep it about the facts, and ONLY the fact, as much as you possibly can. In fact, try to say as little as possible about your opponents. Only after the facts are firmly embedded in the reader that they will be able to evaluate who is being honest, and at that point you won't even need to point out the dishonesty of your opponents.

So for example, here's a rewrite of your last paragraph:

"A final word. I have placed a lot of links in my text to supporting literature. Many of these links are to Wikipedia, which has sometimes been criticized as being unreliable or biased. Such criticism generally focuses on politically controversial topics. On technical matters, I have found Wikipedia to be very reliable, and the reader can use links from Wikipedia to explore more primary sources for the material contained within the Wikipedia pages."

This way, if the reader has doubts about the accuracy of Wikipedia, you've made an argument which may help alleviate those doubts in regard to your message without making them feel insulted for having had those doubts.

 

[shadron]

Thanks, Ziggurat, Cuddles and jj. I appreciate the help and I'll see about the suggested changes.

 

[shadron]

The technical stuff looks fine, but a note about the writing. When engaged in direct debate, there's a strong temptation to be combative with your opponents, and there are parts of your response which adopt such a tone.

OK. Looking at the rebuttal to paragraph 1, in which I accuse the writer of a strawman argument, how should that be handled, besides removing the "writer" as the subject of the argument to the paragraph itself?

 

[Ziggurat]

OK. Looking at the rebuttal to paragraph 1, in which I accuse the writer of a strawman argument, how should that be handled, besides removing the "writer" as the subject of the argument to the paragraph itself?

The difficulty there is that someone new to the debate won't have any context in which to place the concept of a strawman. It's all new, so even if the argument the anti-nuke folks present is irrelevant, they won't know why until after it's been explained. Here's one possible take, though it's a bit longer:

Total entrapment of all radioactive material from a nuclear plant is both impractical and unnecessary. Federal regulations permit the release of small amounts of radioactive material precisely because releases at these levels are well below the threshold that would pose any public safety risk. The focus of nuclear safety should be on exactly that: safety. And safety requires sufficiently low levels of radioactivity, it does not require zero radioactivity. Our world is filled with radioactive material, from the food we eat to the air we breathe to our very bodies. This is not a result of nuclear technology, but predates man's very existence. We evolved in an environment of constant low-level radiation, and our bodies are adapted to it. Radiation is only dangerous when it reaches levels significantly larger than the background radiation we are always exposed to, and federal regulations ensure that nuclear power plants operate well within these safe limits, even when these release events occur.

 

[ginjawarrior]

as a layman i know this has helped me xkcd put radiation into an easy way to quantify

this has worked better than a wall of text for a alot of people i know who think all radiation is bad

 

[shadron]

as a layman i know this has helped me xkcd put radiation into an easy way to quantify
http://imgs.xkcd.com/blag/radiation.png

this has worked better than a wall of text for a alot of people i know who think all radiation is bad

Yes, indeedy. I mentioned it (provide a URL) in the next to the last paragraph on this page: http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=7982871&postcount=2 .

EDT: Ah, but I botched the URL. It should have been http://xkcd.com/radiation .
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=7982871&postcount=2

 

[shadron]

The difficulty there is that someone new to the debate won't have any context in which to place the concept of a strawman. It's all new, so even if the argument the anti-nuke folks present is irrelevant, they won't know why until after it's been explained. Here's one possible take, though it's a bit longer:

Total entrapment of all radioactive material from a nuclear plant is both impractical and unnecessary. Federal regulations permit the release of small amounts of radioactive material precisely because releases at these levels are well below the threshold that would pose any public safety risk. The focus of nuclear safety should be on exactly that: safety. And safety requires sufficiently low levels of radioactivity, it does not require zero radioactivity. Our world is filled with radioactive material, from the food we eat to the air we breathe to our very bodies. This is not a result of nuclear technology, but predates man's very existence. We evolved in an environment of constant low-level radiation, and our bodies are adapted to it. Radiation is only dangerous when it reaches levels significantly larger than the background radiation we are always exposed to, and federal regulations ensure that nuclear power plants operate well within these safe limits, even when these release events occur.

Thanks, Zig. I'll look into that.