Merged nuclear power safe?

[Belz...]

one can absorb it through the skin too.

Oh, REALLY ?

 

[bikerdruid]

You could probably sit naked on a throne of depleted uranium for the rest of your life and, if you wash your hands, you should be quite safe. Ridiculous, but safe.

Really? And how fast do you think that dermal absorption of metallic uranium is? Numbers, please.

probably the rest of your life would do it....

ask belz, he can answer your question.
he's the one who made the ludicrous statement.

 

[mortimer]

probably the rest of your life would do it....

The rest of your life is not a rate. You might want to check your units.

 

[Belz...]

probably the rest of your life would do it....

ask belz, he can answer your question.
he's the one who made the ludicrous statement.

It's only ludicrous because you don't know it's true.

 

[Xephyr]

United States Department of Labor

http://www.osha.gov/SLTC/healthguidelines/uraniuminsolublecompounds/recognition.html

[snip]

Metallic uranium

SUBSTANCE IDENTIFICATION

* Formula
U
* Structure
(For Structure, see paper copy)
* Synonyms
U; Uranium metal, pyrophoric; uranium.
* Identifiers

1. CAS 7440-61-1.
2. RTECS YR3490000.
3. DOT UN: 2979 65 (for the pyrophoric forms of the metal).
4. DOT labels: Radioactive and Flammable Solid.

* Appearance and odor Elemental uranium is a heavy, malleable, silvery white, lustrous, radioactive metal that is pyrophoric when finely divided. When uranium is obtained by reduction, it takes the form of a black powder. In its natural state, uranium has three isotopes: (234)U, (235)U, and (238)U. U-238 has a half life of 4,510,000,000 years.

[snip]

2. Effects on Humans: Metallic uranium and insoluble uranium compounds may produce both chemical poisoning and radiation injury [Clayton and Clayton 1981, p. 1996]. The insoluble uranium compounds are less toxic chemically than the soluble compounds, but uranium and all uranium compounds have the potential to cause radiation damage [Clayton and Clayton 1981, p. 2000; Klaassen, Amdur, and Doull 1986, p. 695]. Exposure to the dusts of uranium or to an insoluble uranium compound may cause respiratory irritation, cough, and shortness of breath [Genium MSDS 1988, No. 238]. Dermatitis has also been reported, and prolonged skin contact causes radiation injury to the basal cells [Proctor, Hughes, and Fischman 1988, p. 502]. Studies have shown that uranium workers are at increased risk of death from respiratory, lymphatic, and hematopoietic cancers; these deaths are presumed to be caused by radiation injury from radon gas, a byproduct of uranium decay [Rom 1983, p. 688]. A study of the risk of respiratory deaths among uranium miners in the United States showed the following dose-response: miners exposed occupationally for 5 to 9.9 years had a 2-fold increase in risk; miners exposed for 10 to 24.9 years had a 3.6-fold increase in risk; and those exposed for greater than 24.9 years had a 3.75-fold increase in risk. Smoking was shown both to increase the risk of death from respiratory disease and to shorten the neoplastic latency period [Clayton and Clayton 1981, pp. 2010-2011].

[snip]

 

[r-j]

"Dermatitis has also been reported, and prolonged skin contact causes radiation injury to the basal cells "

There goes that throne idea.

 

[Belz...]

You can wear a pyjama then, r-j.

The point is, the radiation won't affect you.

 

[a_unique_person]

They have found a leak in number 2, and will try to plug it with cement.

http://www.cnn.com/2011/WORLD/asiapcf/04/02/japan.nuclear.reactors/index.html?hpt=T1

20cm is a decent crack.

 

[Puppycow]

They have found a leak in number 2, and will try to plug it with cement.

http://www.cnn.com/2011/WORLD/asiapcf/04/02/japan.nuclear.reactors/index.html?hpt=T1

20cm is a decent crack.

This is a step forward. We already knew that something had to be leaking by the sampling of seawater. Now that we know where a source is, it can be sealed. I assume the crack was caused by the earthquake.

There's a picture of the crack in this article:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/apr/02/japan-fukushima-radioactive-water-leaking-sea

 

[a_unique_person]

This is a step forward. We already knew that something had to be leaking by the sampling of seawater. Now that we know where a source is, it can be sealed. I assume the crack was caused by the earthquake.

There's a picture of the crack in this article:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/apr/02/japan-fukushima-radioactive-water-leaking-sea

I'm guessing meltdown. Radiation would have been present earlier if it was the quake, IMHO.

 

[Puppycow]

I'm guessing meltdown. Radiation would have been present earlier if it was the quake, IMHO.

The radiation was caused by the meltdown, but the crack in the concrete was probably caused by the earthquake.

 

[Belz...]

They have found a leak in number 2, and will try to plug it with cement.

http://www.cnn.com/2011/WORLD/asiapcf/04/02/japan.nuclear.reactors/index.html?hpt=T1

20cm is a decent crack.

Excellent. If they succeed quickly they might be able to finally stabilize the situation, assuming none of the other reactors have similar leaks.

 

[JihadJane]

I am bowing out of any further discussion with you. The links I provided show clear and long term evidence as to the health effects of radiation exposure.

Your non-committal description, above, of what the links purportedly show differs from your original assertions.

The links show that there has not been enough research to draw any definitive conclusions.

It seems like a bit of a cop-out for you simply to restate your assertion without showing how these links support it.

I read the links you provided pretty thoroughly and cannot see where they show that radiation is beneficial or, as you claimed, that there are no problems with low level radiation exposure. This surprised me because you seem to be someone who would research things thoroughly. I'm also surprised that you simply dismiss my observations without bothering to substantiate your claims beyond repointing at the links.

You have stressed the scientific importance of substantiating claims but I do not see how your links do this.

There is risk, but small and chances are other stuff is going to get you first. I find it difficult to make any other conclusion.

This differs from from original statement that there is "no evidence of any great risk".

You don't show how you reached this conclusion from the links you provided.

You previously wrote:

Real studies even at Rocky Flats do not show problems with low levels of radiation exposure.

The Rocky Flats study you linked to does not actually show this, nor does it claim to. It says further, better research is needed.

As to the long term health of working in a nuclear plant...well, the death rate is just less. It is a clean and safety conscious environment.

This differs from your initial claim. You previously wrote:

The facts are that working in a nuclear plant tends to increase one's lifespan

I did not find these alleged facts in the links you provided.

That nuclear power stations are "clean and safety conscious environments" does not demonstrate that low levels of radiation are safe or that it is beneficial to one's health, nor that it increases one's lifespan.

http://www.me.utexas.edu/~ans/Pro/lle.html

Nor does the information in this link. It does is not contain enough data to draw such a conclusion. Additionally, the data that it does contain is about loss of life expectancy from various activities, not an increase.

I guess I don't understand why you would post the link.

So that people who are better informed than me can apply their critical thinking to it. It is not possible to be an expert on everything.

Below is a talk, given in 1998 (?) by Dr. Ernest J. Sternglass, on nuclear contamination and cancer and the how it was discovered that low levels of radiation can damage human health. Correlations were observed between cancers and nuclear bomb tests, nuclear power stations and X-rays.

Dr.Sternglass was Professor of Radiological Physics at the University of Pittsburg's School of Medicine. He played a major role in getting President Kennedy to sign a Nuclear Test Ban Treaty in 1963.

'Nuclear Contamination and Cancer':

 

[JihadJane]

'Low Energy Nuclear Reactions: 2.5 Million Watt-hours from a Nickel?'

 

[Hindmost]

Your non-committal description, above, of what the links purportedly show differs from your original assertions.

The links show that there has not been enough research to draw any definitive conclusions.

It seems like a bit of a cop-out for you simply to restate your assertion without showing how these links support it.

I read the links you provided pretty thoroughly and cannot see where they show that radiation is beneficial or, as you claimed, that there are no problems with low level radiation exposure. This surprised me because you seem to be someone who would research things thoroughly. I'm also surprised that you simply dismiss my observations without bothering to substantiate your claims beyond repointing at the links.

You have stressed the scientific importance of substantiating claims but I do not see how your links do this.



This differs from from original statement that there is "no evidence of any great risk".

You don't show how you reached this conclusion from the links you provided.

You previously wrote:

The Rocky Flats study you linked to does not actually show this, nor does it claim to. It says further, better research is needed.



This differs from your initial claim. You previously wrote:



I did not find these alleged facts in the links you provided.

That nuclear power stations are "clean and safety conscious environments" does not demonstrate that low levels of radiation are safe or that it is beneficial to one's health, nor that it increases one's lifespan.



Nor does the information in this link. It does is not contain enough data to draw such a conclusion. Additionally, the data that it does contain is about loss of life expectancy from various activities, not an increase.




So that people who are better informed than me can apply their critical thinking to it. It is not possible to be an expert on everything.

Below is a talk, given in 1998 (?) by Dr. Ernest J. Sternglass, on nuclear contamination and cancer and the how it was discovered that low levels of radiation can damage human health. Correlations were observed between cancers and nuclear bomb tests, nuclear power stations and X-rays.

Dr.Sternglass was Professor of Radiological Physics at the University of Pittsburg's School of Medicine. He played a major role in getting President Kennedy to sign a Nuclear Test Ban Treaty in 1963.

snip....

You have not comprehended what was posted or didn't really read any of it. The fact is that there is no great risk with low levels of radiation exposure which means exactly the same as there is little risk.

By the way, the nickel low energy nuclear reaction link you posted is pseudo science. It is not credible at all.

glenn

ETA:

from this link...

http://www.nap.edu/openbook.php?isbn=030909156X

Results

In most of the nuclear industry workers studies, death rates among worker populations were compared with national or regional rates. In most cases, rates for all causes and all cancer mortality in the workers were substantially lower than in the reference populations. Possible explanations include the healthy worker effect and unknown differences between nuclear industry workers and the general population

 

[JihadJane]

You have not comprehended what was posted or didn't really read any of it. The fact is that there is no great risk with low levels of radiation exposure which means exactly the same as there is little risk.

I did read it and it doesn't support your assertions. For example, the FAQ questions I summarized show there is more than "little risk" -, Q2150, Q2410, Q3378, Q3380, Q3867

By the way, the nickel low energy nuclear reaction link you posted is pseudo science. It is not credible at all.

Thanks. Good to know.

ETA:

from this link...

http://www.nap.edu/openbook.php?isbn=030909156X

In most of the nuclear industry workers studies, death rates among worker populations were compared with national or regional rates. In most cases, rates for all causes and all cancer mortality in the workers were substantially lower than in the reference populations. Possible explanations include the healthy worker effect and unknown differences between nuclear industry workers and the general population

I.e not evidence that radiation is beneficial or that working in a nuclear power station will give you a longer lifespan than if you hadn't.

I am not convinced that your approach is scientific. You have made exaggerated claims that you have been unable to substantiate with anything other than further generalized assertions and have avoided addressing most of my points.

 

[Aepervius]

I am not convinced that your approach is scientific. You have made exaggerated claims that you have been unable to substantiate with anything other than further generalized assertions and have avoided addressing most of my points.

You should really be careful of what you say, because of misunderstanding the petkau effect, or even exagerating the effect of low radiation as being overly dangerous, is what you seem to pretend, and is not supported by science.

 

[Puppycow]

GE vows $10 million aid, long-term help on Fukushima: report

I suppose that GE isn't necessarily legally obligated to pay for any of this, even though they designed and build these reactors, but $10 million is a pittance for GE even though it sounds like a lot. The cost of this disaster to TEPCO might be tens of billions of dollars. (I found estimates of $50 billion and $90 billion on the internet, but I don't know how reliable those are).

 

[Aepervius]

GE vows $10 million aid, long-term help on Fukushima: report

I suppose that GE isn't necessarily legally obligated to pay for any of this, even though they designed and build these reactors, but $10 million is a pittance for GE even though it sounds like a lot. The cost of this disaster to TEPCO might be tens of billions of dollars. (I found estimates of $50 billion and $90 billion on the internet, but I don't know how reliable those are).

Probably not very. It depends on factors which are not well known at the moment, or could get worst. Firstly they will have to test carefully the surrounding, then clean up what need to be cleaned, especially near the central. Once they made an assessement of contamination, they can evaluate it. For that I have seen widely differening numbers, none from the japanese governement so I will ignore them.

Then there is the economical cost, which will probably be much greater than the clean up cost. That one will continue for decades even after the clean up is finished (if any needed), because people are disproportionnaly frightened of contamination. It will be in loss of opportunity (tourism going to zero , exportation being forbidden) potential material cost (assumption from me : making new coal central to compensante current lack of power in the short term, having to build an infrastructure to detect radiation coming from product of the region, testing etc...).

Belarus estimated that in 3 decades they lsot something like 240 billion$ in opportunity and relief program (but 13 billion between 1991 and 2003 for chernobyl itself) if you look up "Chernobyl cost". (first web site I looked Chernobyl Cost take it with a grain of salt, but in absence of more solid Info that will do)

I don't think the impact on Japan will be the same, for one I think the opportunity cost will be greater, because as far as i know Japan tourisn is greater than biolorussia's tourism, but difficult to say which impact it will have.

My "nose" estimate is , matching the number we know for Chernobyl, that the local cost of clean up will be about 5 to 15 billion dollar over 10 years, but that the loss of opportunity , economical and touristic impact will be easily in the hundred of billion over a few decades.

ETA: opportunistic cost: those numbers might be actually widely inflated considering the source, but googling did not bring me to a better source. Only the 13 billion$ cost between 1991 and 2003 seems to have good reference.

 

[Puppycow]

I don't think the impact on Japan will be the same, for one I think the opportunity cost will be greater, because as far as i know Japan tourisn is greater than biolorussia's tourism, but difficult to say which impact it will have.

Yes. I think so. Here is Fukushima's official tourism web page:
http://fuku-tabi.jp/en/

All these people (hotels, hot springs, etc.) will have to be compensated.

Then there's the farmers. [/QUOTE]