Merged nuclear power safe?

[r-j]

Not belief of a scientist, unless s/he is not acting as scientist. Science is objective, by definition.

But people are not. I was responding to the false claim that while dams are destructive, nuclear reactors are not.

Greenies regularly oppose hydro projects as they are quite destructive to river ecosystems.

Nuclear reactors aren't.

As so often happens, truth is simply ignored, when it doesn't match cherished belief.

To be comprehensive, coal and gas power plants also can cause damage by heating rivers.

 

[Sword_Of_Truth]

I described CNSC regulations and the specific design features of CANDU reactors.

Do you have an objective science based response to this or is baseless assertions all you have?

This is a critical thinkers forum, we run on evidence here.

 

[r-j]

As for the claim that science is objective, I was just reading on another page and saw thie following.

The uncertainty range, as employed in this chapter, is not the product of systematic quantitative analyses of the various factors associated with the forcing, and thus lacks a rigorous statistical basis. The usage here is different from the manner �uncertainty range� is defined and addressed elsewhere in this document. The SAR had also stated a �confidence level� which represented a subjective judgement that the actual forcing would lie within the specified uncertainty range. In order to avoid the confusion over the use of the term �confidence level�, we introduce in this assessment a �level of scientific understanding� (LOSU) that represents, again, a subjective judgement and expresses somewhat similar notions as in the SAR (refer also to IPCC, 1999).

http://www.ipcc.ch/ipccreports/tar/wg1/251.htm

Certainly when it comes to the sciences that involve money, health or risk, science (or rather scientists) are anything but objective at times. I see it here from people who want to talk about evidence, but never offer any for their claims. But demand you prove everything.

 

[r-j]

I know some people simply hate admitting they don't know, or that things are uncertain, like with the current Fukushima disaster. But an honest assessment would include such language, as otherwise it isn't science.

The LOSU index for each forcing agent is based on an assessment of the nature of assumptions involved, the uncertainties prevailing about the processes that govern the forcing, and the resulting confidence in the numerical value of the estimate. The subjectivity reflected in the LOSU index is unavoidable and is necessitated by the lack of sufficient quantitative information on the uncertainties, especially for the non-well-mixed greenhouse gas forcing mechanisms.

http://www.ipcc.ch/ipccreports/tar/wg1/251.htm

What kind of fool would proclaim they know everything? Especially in regards to a huge disaster, and with no data to go on?

Political fools.

When there is no evidence, or it can't be obtained, only fools rush in, and tell everyone they know what is up. The nuclear industry is like that. They want to tell everyone they know no accidents can happen. Then when they do, they try and avoid the consequences.

 

[shadron]

Political fools.

When there is no evidence, or it can't be obtained, only fools rush in, and tell everyone they know what is up. The nuclear industry is like that. They want to tell everyone they know no accidents can happen. Then when they do, they try and avoid the consequences.

In the context of:

Certainly when it comes to the sciences that involve money, health or risk, science (or rather scientists) are anything but objective at times. I see it here from people who want to talk about evidence, but never offer any for their claims. But demand you prove everything.

Pardon my trodding upon the exact ground you're pleading out of, but what evidence can you bring that shows that "The nuclear industry ... want to tell everyone they know no accidents can happen."? I don't mean anyone (myself included) from this forum, but actual industry spokesmen or official press releases which state exactly this?

We do have people here who work in nuclear energy, but I would snicker at such a claim on its face in this quasi-anonymous area in any case. If an official source came up with it, I'd have to laugh out loud. But I really don't think you'll find it. PR people are scary, but they're not fools. As you noted.

I think everyone knows that the statements made on this forum about safe reactors, namely that no one has died from nuclear power, is descriptive of history, not making any kind of prediction, scientific or otherwise.

 

[r-j]

Your commentary that "no one has died" is just such an example, of unscientific thought. It's the pleading of a PR firm, desperate to focus the thoughts on how safe everything must be. Along side the claims of how radiation is actually good for us, and everything we have been taught about radiation dangers is all based on one fraud of science long ago, the whole thing reeks of politics.

It's not science. Science would take animals and plants and carefully expose them, short term and long term, to radio-cesium, and the other dangerous products of reactors. Then measure and study, compare to controls groups, then publish the results. Both to understand what happens, as well as try and find remedies and methods to decontaminate and protect.

That would be scientific. Not endlessly repeating a mantra of "no one has died" or "it's safer than coal", or whatever the line of the week is.

 

[Sword_Of_Truth]

I think everyone knows that the statements made on this forum about safe reactors, namely that no one has died from nuclear power, is descriptive of history, not making any kind of prediction, scientific or otherwise.

Actually, the death toll to causes unique to nuclear power in the west in the last 50 years has been four. There have been additional fatalities to causes not unique to nuclear power. People fall off ladders in every industry, this has not been used as an argument to ban ladders.

It's not that nuclear is somehow magically immune to entropy and thermodynamics, it's not, it can't be. No system can. It's not that nuclear isn't hazardous. It's extremely hazardous. But that isn't the same as dangerous. Dangerous is a hazard that is improperly managed.

Nuclear energy is far safer than its critics make it out to be. It's far safer than everything else. I personally don't want anyone to die. But if given the choice, I'll take 4 deaths in 50 years over half a million every single year every time.

 

[r-j]

The propaganda about safety is about as far from science as you get.

And no, I will not provide "evidence" to support what I just said. If you want to argue that way, then you have to do what you demand. You provide a peer reviewed study to support every sentence you type. Before you get to insist your opposition do the same.

 

[r-j]

These *********** anti-nuke whackjobs are holding us back big time.

This myth may comfort the western mind, which thinks China and Russia and all other countries have been halted in their nuclear progress by the concerned scientists and activists of the west.

In reality the lack of reactors has nothing to do with any rabid green or anti-nuke hippy. Of course if you ask somebody spouting rhetoric like the above to provide evidence, say that a single reactor in China or India or Korea or Russia was stopped by nuclear protests, they will quickly dance around providing any. Like any emotional belief, it is based on a feeling, not facts.

While neither of us can provide any "evidence" for our polemic, the news that Georgia is getting two new reactors certainly puts the debate in a new light. I'm of the mind that new reactors, despite being massively expensive, dangerous and so forth, they should be built to last, safe, and rather than going with the "accidents will never happen", they should build them with back up cooling, and emergency equipment on sight, with plans for what to do when something does go wrong.

The spent fuel problem, still not solved, is perhaps the biggest danger of all. Because there is just so much of it. And if you don't keep it cool, it bursts into flames and spreads radiation all about.

Other than that, I would say nuclear power is safe.

 

[shadron]

Your commentary that "no one has died" is just such an example, of unscientific thought. It's the pleading of a PR firm, desperate to focus the thoughts on how safe everything must be. Along side the claims of how radiation is actually good for us, and everything we have been taught about radiation dangers is all based on one fraud of science long ago, the whole thing reeks of politics.

It's not science. Science would take animals and plants and carefully expose them, short term and long term, to radio-cesium, and the other dangerous products of reactors. Then measure and study, compare to controls groups, then publish the results. Both to understand what happens, as well as try and find remedies and methods to decontaminate and protect.

That would be scientific. Not endlessly repeating a mantra of "no one has died" or "it's safer than coal", or whatever the line of the week is.

Eh? What's that? You'll have to speak up. I presumed you were going to trounce me with the quote of some deranged PR person, from his rubber room to the effect that his former company wanted everyone to know that "no accidents can happen". No such luck, huh?

SoT is right about the deaths incurred from radiation in the nuclear industry, as far as anyone that I've heard and can back up. I was aware that there were a few; I've since looked it up, and he appears to be right. There have been some medical radiation deaths as well, and a couple of suicides and miscellaneous accidents (people stumbling over a lost medical radiation source, for example). Those are pretty much hard, scientific facts, in that they can be verified by disinterested investigators. And it's also true that there are likely more, people who were thought to have died of other causes or whose death was covered for some reason, and has since been lost (this probably happened with some frequency in the Soviet Bloc and China; read about the Totsk test, as one grizzly example). Still the number, as he points out, is low compared to coal, oil, gas, geo and possibly one or more of the "renewable" sources, as a proportion of the delivered power. That's my statement, and I'm sticking to it until proved to be mistaken, having made a diligent effort on my part to find out those facts. So if you're not interested in these facts, what is it you are interested in comparing?

Can you make a similar statement about your position?

Your paragraph on testing has been done. When the results were reported, those against have always stated that such studies are not applicable, because cattle aren't human, or that pigs have different blood proteins, or that rabbits are so cute and it's cruel to use them for testing. Do you know that the EPA ran a pig and dairy cattle farm in the NNSS in Area 15 (right next door to Area 51 - hows that for dyslexia?) for about twenty-one years to study how cows took up ¹³⁷iodine? Do you know that the first nuclear test after WWII had cows, pigs and other animals on board the target ships?

 

[Sword_Of_Truth]

I will not provide "evidence" to support what I just said.

Oookkaaaayyyy...

If you want to argue that way, then you have to do what you demand. You provide a peer reviewed study to support every sentence you type. Before you get to insist your opposition do the same.

First off, I have provided peer reviewed studies before, that's beside the point.

I don't care if you do as I do. I want to see you live up to the standards that you demanded.

Here they are again, in case you forgot:

Are you a nuclear engineer? Of course not. Did you ever work at a reactor? No. 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 people who do. Pathetic really.

In the course of our discussion and various other nuclear threads I have referenced or linked to:

Dr. Jeremy Whitlock, Atomic Energy of Canada Ltd, Chalk River Laboratory
Dr. Dan Meneley, Engineer Emeritus AECL, Adjunct Professor University of Ontario Institute of Technology
Dr. Jerry Cuttler, AECL
Dr. Charles Till, Associate Director Argonne National Laboratory
Dr. Susanna Harding, Principal Engineer Apantec LLC
Dr. Duane Pendergast, Reactor Safety Analyst, AECL
Kirk Sorensen, NASA Deep Space Power Systems engineer
Dr. Eric Loewen, United States Navy, General Electric
Dr. George S. Stanford, Argonne National Laboratory
Dr. Ted Rockwell, chief of technical staff to Admiral Hyman "Father of the Nuclear Navy" Rickover​

...And several others.

I and several others did what you demanded. You have not met your own standards.

 

[r-j]

Do you know that the EPA ran a pig and dairy cattle farm in the NNSS in Area 15 (right next door to Area 51 - hows that for dyslexia?) for about twenty-one years to study how cows took up ¹³⁷iodine? Do you know that the first nuclear test after WWII had cows, pigs and other animals on board the target ships?

We know that until the late sixties radio-cesium wasn't known to cause health problems. Which is why they were still exploding rockets full of it in the atmosphere. It is also the reason for the above ground text ban. Cesium bio-accumulates, and is a real hazard.

They aren't concerned over it in Japan right now because of any myths about the dangers. Despite what the PR wants us to believe.

First off, I have provided peer reviewed studies before, that's beside the point.

No, it sort of is the point. Please provide evidence to support what you said.

 

[Sword_Of_Truth]

No, it sort of is the point. Please provide evidence to support what you said.

Are you a nuclear engineer? Of course not. Did you ever work at a reactor? No. 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 people who do. Pathetic really.

 

[r-j]

Please provide a peer reviewed published article or paper to support what you claimed.

 

[r-j]

Meanwhile, it is looking more and more like the current crisis is just a malfunctioning temperature device.

http://www.cnn.com/2012/02/13/world/asia/japan-nuclear-reactor-heating/index.html

Even so, there is no way to avoid the truth.

The disaster displaced more than 100,000 people as far away as 40 kilometers (25 miles) from the plant. The levels of radiation in the area closest to the plant are still dangerously high.

 

[Sword_Of_Truth]

Meanwhile, it is looking more and more like the current crisis is just a malfunctioning temperature device.

http://www.cnn.com/2012/02/13/world/asia/japan-nuclear-reactor-heating/index.html

Even so, there is no way to avoid the truth.

Not for you, at least.

These two experts meet the standards you demanded. They are both qualified nuclear engineers and have designed, built and operated nuclear reactors.

Based on the radiation levels around Fukushima, it is wrong to speak
about a health risk from the radiation. There is, however, a very
real health risk is from the fear that the media and many others have
been whipping up. This is post-traumatic stress syndrome. It
happened at Chernobyl and it is happening again, now, to the many tens
of thousands of evacuated people around Fukushima. We ought to do
something to stop this suffering.

- Dr. Jerry Cutler

New lessons are beginning to emerge from Fukushima. Each new concern leads to additional safety requirements. But some contradictions are beginning to raise questions: Amid tens of thousands of deaths from non-nuclear causes, not a single life-shortening radiation injury has occurred. Not one! And while some people in the housing area are wearing cumbersome rad-con suits, filtered gas-masks, gloves and booties, there are many people living carefree in other places like Norway, Brazil, Iran, India where folks have lived normal lives for countless generations with radiation levels as much as a hundred times greater than forbidden areas of the Fukushima homes.

At Fukushima this is no abstract issue. People are being told they cannot return home for an indeterminate period – perhaps years. And efforts to decontaminate their home sites may require stripping off all the rich top-soil and calling it RadWaste. People who were evacuated have been reduced to economic poverty, clinical depression, and even suicide.

There is good scientific evidence that, except for some hot spots, the radiation levels at these home-sites are not life-threatening. The current restrictions are based on a desire to be “conservative.” No matter how well intended, this “conservatism” is cruelly destructive. The respected radiation authority Wade Allison, author of Radiation and Reason, has proposed that the current annual radiation dose limit be raised 1000-fold, which he says is still well below the hazard level of clinical data on which he bases his proposal. Other radiation protectionists are beginning to feel unhappy about the harm their rules have caused and are joining in the cry for quick action as the Japanese head into winter.

It’s time that the draconian measures be revoked. A simple declaration of the known health facts about radiation from the proper authorities would be a good first step.

- Dr. Ted Rockwell​

 

[r-j]

"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.

 

[r-j]

OK I know, with little doubt, that somebody will now try and say he didn't say it.

"The respected radiation authority Wade Allison, author of Radiation and Reason, has proposed that the current annual radiation dose limit be raised 1000-fold, which he says is still well below the hazard level of clinical data on which he bases his proposal. "

But there it is. The maximum yearly dose for US workers is 50mSv

According to the expert, it should be 50,000 mSv, which is 50 Sv

But you can't argue with that. He is an expert.

 

[shadron]

We know that until the late sixties radio-cesium wasn't known to cause health problems. Which is why they were still exploding rockets full of it in the atmosphere. It is also the reason for the above ground text ban. Cesium bio-accumulates, and is a real hazard.

No, they weren't exploding rocket-fuls of it in the atmosphere. There were 25 rocket tests, six of them above the atmosphere altogether, mostly by the Soviet Union (the US did 6 rockets in the atmosphere). Airplane drops, balloon shoots and surface shots, yes, in the 60s. And regardless, these were most definitely NOT the result of not knowing about cesium. That is the oddest statement you've made lately.

Radiocesium was known as a common fission product in 1943, its uptake in plants at least studied. See "RADIOCESIUM DISCHARGES AND SUBSEQUENT ENVIRONMENTAL TRANSPORT AT THE MAJOR U.S. WEAPONS PRODUCTION FACILITIES" at http://web.engr.oregonstate.edu/~hambydm/papers/garten.pdf .

And yes, if by bio-accumulation you mean that it can replace potassium in muscles. But do you know as well that it has a 1-3 month biological half-life, and that administered Prussian Blue can lower that to 2-4 weeks?

They aren't concerned over it in Japan right now because of any myths about the dangers.

Uhhh, that doesn't make any sense to me. Come again? Perhaps you meant to say, "The Japanese are concerned about cesium, but not because of myths about the dangers". Then I have to ask, what myths? I haven't been spreading any; have you?

Ahem...still nothing on that "no accidents can happen statement", right?

 

[r-j]

No, they weren't exploding rocket-fuls of it in the atmosphere. There were 25 rocket tests, six of them above the atmosphere altogether, mostly by the Soviet Union (the US did 6 rockets in the atmosphere). Airplane drops, balloon shoots and surface shots, yes, in the 60s. And regardless, these were most definitely NOT the result of not knowing about cesium. That is the oddest statement you've made lately.

http://nuclearhistory.wordpress.com...a-five-year-study-of-distribution-and-levels/

You can try and distort history all you like. Nuclear fallout, nuclear bombs and dangerous by products have always been secrets, dangerous ones. Nobody expects the truth when it comes to radioactivity and nuclear energy.

The problem with claiming something didn't happen, or can't happen, is that it isn't scientific.