Nuclear disasters and AGW fears

[r-j]

After reading the latest Fukushima thread I was struck once more with this strange connection in tone, response, attitudes and how the non-conversation goes.

There is also the unbalanced agreement between the two groups. The five groups I see.

People who fear AGW also fear nuclear

People who fear AGW love nuclear

People don't fear AGW but fear nuclear

People don't fear AGW or nuclear

and people never post in a topic about either.

Which are you? If you don't answer, it pretty much means you are group 5.

The strange similarity is how people who 100% love nuclear can't see any danger, no matter what. This is like the people who don't fear the AGW, no matter what they are not afraid.

There seems to be zero communication or willingness to learn anything. Once the mind is made up, nothing will matter.

Does anyone else notice this?

 

[Tony]

Out of all those groups, I guess I would fall into the "fear AGW love nuclear" camp. Nuclear is the cleanest and most efficient way to generate energy. And with the new reactor designs, its virtually impossible for a meltdown to occur. My wildest dream would be for the US and the World to fully develop and deploy Thorium reactors.

 

[Wolrab]

Wow. For the first time since March of 2003, I am 100% in agreement with Tony.

 

[Mark6]

I am in agreement with both Tony and Wolrab.

I would not say I "can't see any danger, no matter what". In particular, I consider putting nuclear power plants into earthquake-prone and/or tsunami-prone regions a bad idea. (But that simply means Japan is a bad place for humans to live.) And I do consider fears over nuclear waste vastly overblown.

 

[Lennart Hyland]

Lurker

But honestly I fear AGW and kinda fear nuclear. Mostly I fear nuclear because my understanding about the whole process is vague and the outcomes of failure could be devestating (I think). Though as energy source its clean and mostly reliable, so I support it.

 

[ben m]

I'm sorta with Tony. I fear AGW. I don't think the nuclear risks are zero, but I think they're low enough.

Even if the risk level is "one Fukushima per 1000 reactors per decade"---the sort of event that means you need to evacuate 1000 square miles while you spend $100b scraping up cesium-loaded topsoil---that's cheap compared to the AGW case where you have to abandon the entire nation of Bangladesh.

And as Tony says, modern reactors are safer than that. Safe enough that I don't fear them at all. But that's a statistical nonfear, not an absolute.

 

[dlorde]

I fear AGW and love nuclear - in principle.

I'd love to see the fail-safe, low waste reactors; properly implemented, operated, supervised, and regulated.

But I fear the human element (error, politics, profit, vested interests, etc.) in that list of requirements...

 

[Cuddles]

I don't think "fear" is necessarily the right word. It certainly fits a significant proportion of the anti-nuclear brigade, who often seem to be so scared of the word "radiation" you'd think it would jump out of the screen and start murdering people every time it's typed. But even plenty of people on that side have reasonable concerns about various different aspects of nuclear power. As for global warming, outright fear seems to be fairly rare outside of sensationalist media articles. For the most part, it's simply seen as a problem we're probably going to have to tackle, not something that makes you hide under the bedsheets in the hopes it won't find us.

As for me, I don't think I really fit any of the categories. I think AGW is a concern, but when it comes to arguments about nuclear power it's pretty much irrelevant. Finite resources, energy security, pollution and waste are far more important. Acid rain and smog are still massive problems destroying large parts of the environments and taking years off life expectancies, even though many people in the West seem to have forgotten about them entirely (the ozone layer holes are still going strong as well, although changing to nuclear power wouldn't do anything to help there). Global warming may be a problem, but there are plenty of other very big, very well known environmental issues that make great arguments for nuclear power. But global warming is the sexy thing to argue about these days so anything else barely gets a mention.

The strange similarity is how people who 100% love nuclear can't see any danger, no matter what.

I have never seen a single person for whom this is an accurate description. I have, however, seen plenty of anti-nuclear people claim this is the position all their opponents hold.

 

[mutile]

AGW Bad, Nuclear Good.

 

[geni]

You missed. Concerned about AWG also concerned about nuclear industry PR.

 

[Diogenes]

...
The strange similarity is how people who 100% love nuclear can't see any danger, no matter what...

Who are these people?

 

[DuvalHMFIC]

Chalk me up with the crowd, AGW bad, Nuclear good.

 

[r-j]

Who are these people?

You for example. When it is discovered that radioactive material from the ruined reactors shows up even in the Atlantic seafood, your reaction is just like what we expect from somebody who doesn't fear AGW at all. Flippant even.

If the public paranoia reaches an adequate threshold I'll enjoy the resulting drop in the price of sushi and crab meat.

 

[macdoc]

Don't particularly fear AGW..r-j is prone to melodrama as you can tell from the leading title.

AGW is a costly threat to industrial civilization that needs better management than we have been doing
I fear that too many politicians ( unlike those in Sweden for instance ) are not up to the task of dealing with the risks and consequences in a timely and cost effective manner.

I am strongly in favour of nuclear power, my province is 40% nuclear and a well run and proven design.
I fear poor management and knee jerk anti-nuclear per our OP that keeps the 12 % of the planet that is on nuclear electricity from moving forward to new designs.

Good article here on the Fukishima fear nonsense
http://deepseanews.com/2014/01/all-...ly-verified-information-on-fukushima-impacts/

The reality is that it was poorly handled and the facility ignored safety policies in place and recommendations for modification to the facility. That's poor management which like Chernobyl had a source in human error.
No reactor would be or is being built like either of those and the nuclear industry has tightened and examined safety standards.

Here on the other hand the safety measures worked as designed
https://www.dom.com/about/stations/nuclear/north-anna/update.jsp
But even then are being upgraded and refined.

There was already a poll on here for nuclear power support and I was quite impressed to see the 80% plus support the last time I checked it.
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/poll.php?do=showresults&pollid=1564

AGW has some very serious consequences if we don't curb emissions but if companies like Exxon are now willing to acknowledge the risk then the world can and is moving to deal with it.

Nuclear's main benefit is to replace coal and China is doing so tho still increasing coal use.

The cost of nuclear is high initially and for decommissioning tho they provide decades of safe clean power.

The major advances in renewables have even nuclear reliant nations like France doing their sums as most of their nuclear fleet is of a similar age and will require either rebuild or diversification of power sources.

I'd welcome any nuclear plant of modern design anywhere where coal can be supplanted.

I'd really support a few IFR which would harvest 90% of the power remaining in the stored nuclear rods.
http://bravenewclimate.com/2009/02/12/integral-fast-reactors-for-the-masses/

This is a major compendium of articles on the viability of nuclear power.

http://bravenewclimate.com/integral-fast-reactor-ifr-nuclear-power/

 

[portlandatheist]

Chalk me up with the crowd, AGW bad, Nuclear good.

You can add me to this list as well.

 

[Jrrarglblarg]

Out of all those groups, I guess I would fall into the "fear AGW love nuclear" camp. Nuclear is the cleanest and most efficient way to generate energy. And with the new reactor designs, its virtually impossible for a meltdown to occur. My wildest dream would be for the US and the World to fully develop and deploy Thorium reactors.

Until you need to dispose of the waste. Nuclear waste is the dirtiest thing we've ever created. I have a Guard buddy who drives nuke waste from wherever it was created to where it's gonna be stored for 10,000 years. The trucks get checked at the sequestration site, and if the truck or trailer is hot the equipment is bought and immediately buried on site. Everything from screwdrivers and glove boxes to forklifts and dump trucks that comes into contact with nuclear material becomes nuclear waste. Everything.

We'll need to keep people out of the waste sequestration sites for longer than we've been wearing stitched clothing, longer than we've been planting grain, longer than any language on earth has yet existed.

While I accept the science of both AGW and the possibility of more technically advanced nuclear reactors, I'm not a fan of driving hot waste around the continent.

 

[Mitchell314]

You for example. When it is discovered that radioactive material from the ruined reactors shows up even in the Atlantic seafood, your reaction is just like what we expect from somebody who doesn't fear AGW at all. Flippant even.

It's dose that matters. The mere presence of radioactive material isn't by itself cause for alarm.

 

[macdoc]

While I accept the science of both AGW and the possibility of more technically advanced nuclear reactors, I'm not a fan of driving hot waste around the continent.

That is not considered hot waste, it's low level material just like comes from hospitals.
Nearly all technologies, particularly chemical plants, coal plants etc have waste disposal issues.......it's just that some ...like coal.... get free passes and leave it sitting in piles after slicing off the tops of mountains leaching heavy metals and radioactive particals.

Coal Ash Is More Radioactive than Nuclear Waste: Scientific American
www.scientificamerican.com › Energy & Sustainability › Strange but True‎
Dec 13, 2007 - By burning away all the pesky carbon and other impurities, coal power plants produce heaps of radiation.

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=coal-ash-is-more-radioactive-than-nuclear-waste

We evolved and live in a radiation blizzard. I've had enormous doses of radiation just as a prophylactic to mop up any last traces of lymphoma.

This will put radiation levels in perspective
http://www.theblaze.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/03/radiation-chart.jpg

I have a couple of air molecules in my lungs that Beethoven breathed out....doesn't help my tin ear at all

 

[macdoc]

It's dose that matters. The mere presence of radioactive material isn't by itself cause for alarm.

Yup

If I stand near to someone they get a dose of radiation from me and I get from them....better find a lead box...

In fact low doses may be beneficial

Radiation hormesis - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radiation_hormesis‎
Assessing the risk of radiation at low doses (<100 mSv) and low dose rates (<0.1 .... a strictly linear dose response should not be expected in all circumstances.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radiation_hormesis

Some people live in cities that have higher annual background radiation doses than would be allowed in a nuclear facility worker over the same period yet have lower radiation sensitive cancer rates.

Still in research stages, many so called "safe levels" are in factor ridiculously low and that feeds the fear mongerers like our OP.

New studies, however, have concluded that there is, in fact, a statistically significant indication of Radiation hormesiss.[16]

pretty soon we'll have radiation bars to get your hormeisis in line
Or get a dental xray.

 

[Jrrarglblarg]

That is not considered hot waste, it's low level material just like comes from hospitals.

Semantic quibbling, and if something is radioactive it is "hot." The "low level material" from hospitals is nothing compared to the hot tools.

Most of his cargo loads are not hot gloveboxes, but spent rods. Look for flatbed trailers on the highway with 2 or 3 round-topped cylinders, one very large (6' in diameter) and one or two smaller, with radiation symbols and no other information on the side of the cans.

Link to images of these containers.

Nearly all technologies, particularly chemical plants, coal plants etc have waste disposal issues.......it's just that some ...like coal.... get free passes and leave it sitting in piles after slicing off the tops of mountains leaching heavy metals and radioactive particals.

Lovely apologetic, but not really comparable to the waste that needs to be sequestered for 10,000 years or more.

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=coal-ash-is-more-radioactive-than-nuclear-waste

From your link:

*Editor's Note (posted 12/30/08): In response to some concerns raised by readers, a change has been made to this story. The sentence marked with an asterisk was changed from "In fact, fly ash—a by-product from burning coal for power—and other coal waste contains up to 100 times more radiation than nuclear waste" to "In fact, the fly ash emitted by a power plant—a by-product from burning coal for electricity—carries into the surrounding environment 100 times more radiation than a nuclear power plant producing the same amount of energy." Our source for this statistic is Dana Christensen, an associate lab director for energy and engineering at Oak Ridge National Laboratory as well as 1978 paper in Science authored by J.P. McBride and colleagues, also of ORNL.

As a general clarification, ounce for ounce, coal ash released from a power plant delivers more radiation than nuclear waste shielded via water or dry cask storage.

Bolding added.

Nuclear waste of all kinds is the dirtiest thing humans have yet created. Radioactive waste is so dirty that it gets other things dirty just by being around it.