• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Merged nuclear power safe?

DC said:
well yes our decision is restricted to switzerland. and i hope we will do a better job than germany, else we will also fail.
Click to expand...

I too hope that you make the better choice to stick with nuclear rather than move to coal.
 
Ziggurat said:
I too hope that you make the better choice to stick with nuclear rather than move to coal.
Click to expand...

so we have to stick to nuclear forever? you know it is not a decision that will do the switch over night.
 
DC said:
so we have to stick to nuclear forever?
Click to expand...

Not forever. But for as far ahead as we can reasonably plan. It's going to take major technological advances for any viable alternative to emerge (they don't exist right now), and we don't know when that will happen or what those alternatives will end up being.
 
Ziggurat said:
Not forever. But for as far ahead as we can reasonably plan. It's going to take major technological advances for any viable alternative to emerge (they don't exist right now), and we don't know when that will happen or what those alternatives will end up being.
Click to expand...

yes they exist when you combine the existing alternatives with storage.
solar thermal with salt storage is already running. We are building smartgrids we increase efficiency standards etc etc. and again, it is not a short term project. at least 20-30 years from now on propably longer, there is no specific date yet.
 
DC said:
yes they exist when you combine the existing alternatives with storage.
Click to expand...

No, they don't. You can't scale those alternatives up to 40% of your electric generation, even if you had the storage. Which you don't.

solar thermal with salt storage is already running.
Click to expand...

Salt storage can last overnight. It can't last through winter.

We are building smartgrids we increase efficiency standards etc etc.
Click to expand...

That'll help forestall increases in demand. Congratulations. But it won't help you replace existing nuclear.

and again, it is not a short term project. at least 20-30 years from now on propably longer, there is no specific date yet.
Click to expand...

Of course there's no specific date yet. Because it can't be done yet.
 
Ziggurat said:
No, they don't. You can't scale those alternatives up to 40% of your electric generation, even if you had the storage. Which you don't.



Salt storage can last overnight. It can't last through winter.



That'll help forestall increases in demand. Congratulations. But it won't help you replace existing nuclear.



Of course there's no specific date yet. Because it can't be done yet.
Click to expand...

that it can be done today is not claimed, that is your strawmen.
and yes the alternatives exist. some are already running commercially. no amount of your nay saying will change that.
 
DC said:
that it can be done today is not claimed, that is your strawmen.
and yes the alternatives exist. some are already running commercially. no amount of your nay saying will change that.
Click to expand...

If the "alternatives" cannot be scaled up to 40% of your generation (and they can't), then they aren't actually alternatives. They are, at best, supplements.
 
So now I'm being called a denialist in thinking that the nuclear holocaust hasn't happened at fukushima. They quote this way

A robot measuring radiation in the Fukushima nuclear power plant, where 3 full-blown nuclear meltdowns are underway detected the highest levels of radiation yet – topping over 4,000,000 microsieverts per hour – a level so high it is 100% lethal within 1.5 hours of exposure.
http://gamutnews.com/20110605/15760/...fukushima.html
TEPCO reports that the extreme levels of radiation were found in steam rising from a vent inside the nuclear reactor which is the same radioactive steam that can be seen being released into the atmosphere from the Fukushima live high-definition webcam. As I previously reported, levels were detected at the plant in excess of 1,000,00 microsieverts per hour after the breakout of a massive fire at the Fukushima reactor which was ignored by the corporate media.

For conversion purposes, 4,000,000 microsieverts per hour is equal to 4,000 millisieverts or 4 sieverts per hour. A 4 sievert dose of radiation is deterministically known to cause death to 50% of people to exposed. A 6 sievert dose deterministically causes death in 100% of people.
Click to expand...

What is the latest from the rational side?
 
pipelineaudio said:
So now I'm being called a denialist in thinking that the nuclear holocaust hasn't happened at fukushima. They quote this way
Click to expand...
As an aside, who is "they" (self-quoted to "I")? This doesn't sound like any official organ of Japan speaking, but more like Greenpeace.
SomeoneScary said:
... For conversion purposes, 4,000,000 microsieverts per hour is equal to 4,000 millisieverts or 4 sieverts per hour. A 4 sievert dose of radiation is deterministically known to cause death to 50% of people to exposed. A 6 sievert dose deterministically causes death in 100% of people.
Click to expand...
What is the latest from the rational side?
Click to expand...
Well, first let's try for some accuracy:
nih via wiki said:
Symptoms of acute radiation (dose received within one day):

0 – 0.25 Sv (0 – 250 mSv): None

0.25 – 1 Sv (250 – 1000 mSv): Some people feel nausea and loss of appetite; bone marrow, lymph nodes, spleen damaged.

1 – 3 Sv (1000 – 3000 mSv): Mild to severe nausea, loss of appetite, infection; more severe bone marrow, lymph node, spleen damage; recovery probable, not assured.

3 – 6 Sv (3000 – 6000 mSv): Severe nausea, loss of appetite; hemorrhaging, infection, diarrhea, peeling of skin, sterility; death if untreated.

6 – 10 Sv (6000 – 10000 mSv): Above symptoms plus central nervous system impairment; death expected.

Above 10 Sv (10000 mSv): Incapacitation and death.
Click to expand...

Now, that's only a factor of about 2 to 2.5 wrong from field experts, so the difference is not calamatous, but it is misleading. I notice also that the robot noted the 4Sv level of radiation, this person states it is in the steam inside (one of?) the containment buildings, that that is the same steam seen o0utside the building rising from it. I note this chain of evidence, apparently leading to the deduction that a man-fatal-dose per 1.5 hrs is issuing into the free air. Is that a true deduction? I think it is very iffy, and depends on a lot of pessimistic thinking. That there are problems at Fukishima is absolutely the case. I don't think this piece of "news", as scientific as it sounds, quite makes the case that it set out to, or that you want to make everyone believe it does.
 
Last edited:
I am having trouble finding much info on skeptics' forums about the new news. Everything in google is alex jonsey type junk
 
pipelineaudio said:
What is the latest from the rational side?
Click to expand...

High radiation levels inside a nuclear reactor is not really unexpected. It's an issue for the cleanup operation, but not really relevant to the effects on the surrounding area. What's far more relevant is the levels away from the plant where there might actually be people. Such as:

pipelineaudio said:
This video is claiming 5.7 micro sieverts per hour 26 miles from tokyo
Click to expand...

That would be a little over 0.1 mSv/day. In other words, 2500 times too low to cause any noticeable effects. That's only about 10 times higher than normal background radiation. So yes, it's there and ideally it wouldn't be, but it's not exactly the end of the world.

pipelineaudio said:
I am having trouble finding much info on skeptics' forums about the new news. Everything in google is alex jonsey type junk
Click to expand...

Probably because there isn't really any news. The situation is still ongoing, but it's not getting any worse so there's really not anything much to report on.
 
Cuddles said:
That would be a little over 0.1 mSv/day. In other words, 2500 times too low to cause any noticeable effects. That's only about 10 times higher than normal background radiation. So yes, it's there and ideally it wouldn't be, but it's not exactly the end of the world.
Click to expand...

This was being posted with the video

"Let me help everyone with some data

6microsieverts per hour = 144 microsieverts per day = 52560 microsieverts per year

10 μSv – The average radiation you received today

40 μSv – The radiation you receive by taking a flight from New York to L.A.

100 μSv – The radiation you receive during a dental x-ray

800 μSv – Total radiation dose at Three-Mile Island for the duration of the accident

3,000 μSv – Radiation dose from a mammogram"

Is there a mili/micro messup in there somewhere?
 
pipelineaudio said:
According to this chart, posted earlier in the thread http://xkcd.com/radiation/
EPA limit is 1ms per person per year. Wouldn't they blow past this in ten days?
Click to expand...

Um...That doesn't jive with the 10µSv number. 10µSv in a day is 100µSv in 10 days, and 1mSv in 100 days. If the EPA limit is 1mSv/year, the average person is blowing through it in less than 1/3 of a year...

Someone, somewhere, got their numbers wrong...



ETA:
Ahhh, I see...XKCD's chart somewhat explains... 1mSv/year is the limit members of the public are allowed to be exposed to (I'm guessing this is relating to power plant emissions, et al). The normal yearly background dose is at the bottom left in the green charts: 4mSv/year.

ETA2: Also shown on the XKCD chart is that the yearly dose limit for a radiation worker is 50mSv. So the members of the public being exposed to 6µSv/yr are being exposed to approx 1 head CT scan/yr more than the yearly limit of a radiation worker. Sure, 52,560µSv sounds bad...but that's because it's not put in perspective and it's a "big number". (btw, XKCD lists a mammogram at 400µSv, not 3mSv)
 
Last edited:
The worldwide average background radiation alone is about 2.5 ms/year per persons.

What I am guessing is that the EPA MAY limit it to an additional 1 mSv per year for normal persons, but that seem relatively low and really easily reached by being a frequent flyer or living in a granitic mountain area. Or alternatively somebody missed a zero or two.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom