Merged nuclear power safe?

[r-j]

I'm pretty sure in this thread people have lied about past accidents, and they may even believe what they said.

Now I get it that the latest reason for wanting nuclear power is the fear of warming. And I can relate to that. Who doesn't want clean energy? Safe, clean cheap energy.

If nuclear power plants actually were that, there wouldn't really be anything to discuss.

 

[shadron]

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.

What's the point in saying he didn't say it? There he is on youtube saying it. I presume he has a reason for saying it, and I'm curious about his arguments.


A search yielded http://www.learningaboutenergy.com/, Ted Rockwell's website, which indicates that this view is a facet of the growing hormesis argument. However,

...watch me argue with your interpretation of his statement:

I would imagine the limit he is referring to is the EPA's 1 mSv limit for yearly exposure to members of the public at large, not that of nuclear industry workers.

See what I did there? I went out and watched the video on the page, something perhaps you ought to have done for yourself before trying to interpret what SoT's quote from him said, because he explains it right there. He stated what he thinks the level ought to be: 100 mSv per month, equivalent to 10 REM/mo in the older measurement system. That ensures that the radiation has to be absorbed in pieces over the entire year. It sounds a bit daring to me, but I haven't read his book.

 

[shadron]

I'm pretty sure in this thread people have lied about past accidents, and they may even believe what they said.

You wouldn't include yourself in that indictment, would you? No, of course not. Apropos to that,

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.

The truth from a journalist at CNN. The foundation of your argument. But how high is "dangerously high"? Inquiring minds want to know. Remember what Robert Heinlein said:

What are the facts? Again and again and again – what are the facts? Shun wishful thinking, ignore divine revelation, forget what “the stars foretell,” avoid opinion, care not what the neighbors think, never mind the unguessable “verdict of history” – what are the facts, and to how many decimal places? You pilot always into an unknown future; facts are your single clue. Get the facts!

You need to work on the "what the neighbors think" thing, I think.

Now I get it that the latest reason for wanting nuclear power is the fear of warming. And I can relate to that. Who doesn't want clean energy? Safe, clean cheap energy.

Latest? Where have you been for the last five years? For all the messages in these threads that have been made, stating that as a reason, perhaps, for urgency in making a changeover?

If nuclear power plants actually were that, there wouldn't really be anything to discuss.

No one here has ever tried to make the point that generating energy is risk-free, AFAIK. No way of generating that much energy is. I believe I can summarize the main point by saying nuclear advocates argue that it is the safest cleanest bulk source of energy available to us today. Possibly the cheapest, depending on how you count those lives that you think we're faking numbers over.

 

[r-j]

Converting the worlds power plants to nuclear would cost at least 8,500,000,000,000,000 or 8,500 trillion dollars.

This would create 10,000,000,000 pounds of spent nuclear fuel rods a year. (5,000,000 tons)

There would be 50,000 places to guard to make sure nobody steals any material, blows anything up, or to make damn sure no natural disaster occurs.

Lets say the plants are a new design, super powerful, all those figures could be cut in half. (but you still need multiple ones due to refueling, where you have to shut them down for a while)

Can you honestly say you would feel safe with every country on the planet running clean nuclear power plants? 25,000 pools of spent fuel. (because even if you dry storage them and take it to some distant mountain to bury and guard for the next million years, they have to sit in pools for a long time first)

Obviously thorium reactors would be a much better idea. Just like natural gas is safer than coal. But human beings don't always do what we want them to. You just know countries with uranium will still use it.

Can you honestly tell me the world would be better off with 20,000 running reactors? In every country on earth?

 

[r-j]

I would imagine the limit he is referring to is the EPA's 1 mSv limit for yearly exposure to members of the public at large, not that of nuclear industry workers.

The only possible reason for even discussing such a thing is due to accidental release of man made radiation sources. medical or nuclear power plants, or fall out exposures.

Other wise, why even bring it up? It would be like somebody wanting to raise the limit for yearly exposure to members of the public from mercury, or pesticides, or coal dust, or the amount of radon. What's the motivation?

If it's because you can do more medical testing, using radioactive tracers, or scanning, that is a valid scientific concern.

If it's to let nuclear reactors pollute more, that is nonsense.

 

[r-j]

Uhhh, that doesn't make any sense to me. Come again?

The concern over radio-cesium in Japan is due to science. Not myths.

 

[shadron]

The concern over radio-cesium in Japan is due to science. Not myths.

Well, Dr Rockwell, Dr Cutler and Dr Alison don't believe it is good science, to varying degrees. The French Academy of Medicine doesn't believe it. The LNT model was built into earlier legislation, thanks in large extent to early scientists like Dr Hermann Muller studying radiation effects in Hiroshima, and a lot of students of nuclear science had it drilled into them over the last 50 years, and it is dying a slow death it appears. It IS the cautious assumption, but as all such assumptions do, it has its costs, and these, in some places such as the 40 km zone around Fukushima, have become onerous.

In my humble (and I mean that) opinion, it is not so much science as scientific and political inertia. It's not myth, we know exactly where it comes from; it was the lag of 40 years between Hiroshima and Chernobyl. If we're lucky and overwhelming evidence for hormesis is ultimately demonstrated, then the rules will change.

 

[r-j]

Oh yes, the cost to the residents is all due to simply not allowing them to get a thousand times more radiation than is deemed safe.

And all this time we blamed four ruined reactors spewing radioactive material into the air. People are so silly. They should just raise the radiation limits! Problem solved.

 

[shadron]

The only possible reason for even discussing such a thing is due to accidental release of man made radiation sources. medical or nuclear power plants, or fall out exposures.

Other wise, why even bring it up? It would be like somebody wanting to raise the limit for yearly exposure to members of the public from mercury, or pesticides, or coal dust, or the amount of radon. What's the motivation?

If it's because you can do more medical testing, using radioactive tracers, or scanning, that is a valid scientific concern.

If it's to let nuclear reactors pollute more, that is nonsense.

You surely do dance around a lot. You started arguing that what Dr Alison was saying was that we should set the standard so high that 10x death amounts should be legal; when shown that your surmise was wrong, now you ignore that and attack the reasons for making the an informed decision about a threshold value for acceptable (in the EPA meaning) radiation absorption on the grounds that enabling intelligent limits is morally wrong and enabling of evil capitalistic polluters. It couldn't possibly be because we want to get the science right and damn the consequences, could it?

Why would anyone do this? Because, wherever radiation is encountered, it is necessary to know when one has to quit absorbing more, and when it is not yet necessary. This might be because of work in a power plant, mining, medical, insurance limitations, etc, etc, all the reasons for which we set pollution limits in the air we breathe, or the water we drink and so on. Why do you think it would be better if we have them wrong? Do you have something against getting the figure right rather than just some moral attachment to super-caution? I recommend that if that is what you want, you let the scientists go to their work and you go get legislation passed which simply bans public uses of nuclear technology. That way you'll get a real reading on how the majority of people stand on your real bald question as opposed to doing it through some backdoor restrictions.

The motivation, sir, is to get the science right. Some day that may be crucial. If it improves my side of the argument, or yours, so be it.

 

[shadron]

Oh yes, the cost to the residents is all due to simply not allowing them to get a thousand times more radiation than is deemed safe.

And all this time we blamed four ruined reactors spewing radioactive material into the air. People are so silly. They should just raise the radiation limits! Problem solved.

...and the benefits to the residents, if indeed the current limits are over-cautious (remember, Alison's suggested limits have to be proved, and likely proved extraordinarily before changes will be allowed)? Like getting to use their homes again, being able to not have to live out of public shelters? Like being able to pick up their livelihood once again, in farmland which is fully usable? What do you have against them, r-j?

 

[shadron]

Converting the worlds power plants to nuclear would cost at least 8,500,000,000,000,000 or 8,500 trillion dollars.

Well, I don't know how you got your figures. But unless you do explain, I'm assuming that you neglected:

- lower prices due to improved, maturing technology;
- lower prices due to sheer mass production (it worked for Ford);
- the fact that ALL the world's plants don't need replacing; in some places solar, wind, geo and hydro may be THE answer.

Yeah it might. But over 50-100 years, that's probably doable; it all depends on what the customers demand. And it certainly will cost more to use solar or wind power, or geo or hydro, if it is feasible at all, to replace all the coal plants in the world, even ignoring the baseload thing. And within the next 100 years, ALL of them will require replacement in any case.

This would create 10,000,000,000 pounds of spent nuclear fuel rods a year. (5,000,000 tons)

There would be 50,000 places to guard to make sure nobody steals any material, blows anything up, or to make damn sure no natural disaster occurs.

Not if they're MSRs, or modular units buried in neighborhoods. But the same thing applies to hydro dams, and expensive solar and wind fields. Coal plants, meh, who cares if some of those get blown up? So we have full employment. That's a problem?

Lets say the plants are a new design, super powerful, all those figures could be cut in half. (but you still need multiple ones due to refueling, where you have to shut them down for a while)

Not if they are MSRs.

Can you honestly say you would feel safe with every country on the planet running clean nuclear power plants? 25,000 pools of spent fuel. (because even if you dry storage them and take it to some distant mountain to bury and guard for the next million years, they have to sit in pools for a long time first)

The alternatives? You prefer a world of coal ash? Look, waste is a temporary problem. MSRs can eat the wastes as fuel.

Obviously thorium reactors would be a much better idea. Just like natural gas is safer than coal. But human beings don't always do what we want them to. You just know countries with uranium will still use it.

So you harangue them, get them to change. You're pretty good at that.

Can you honestly tell me the world would be better off with 20,000 running reactors? In every country on earth?

Damn, bring it on. Maybe everyone could be prosperous enough that the real terrorists wouldn't be able to get traction in the poor countries of the Earth? Wouldn't it be nice if we could eliminate greed like we would have eliminated hunger? (Stop me...I feel like I'm slipping over the edge......)

I've leaned pretty heavily on new technology in my answers here; MSRs and LFTRs look pretty good, but perhaps there are problems. Perhaps in the end they'll only be good in comparison to the mess we have now. Or not. If that's the case, our goose is cooked. But if we don't try using nuclear fission power for the short term, I'm pretty sure it will indeed be cooked. So I'm hoping for something of a miracle, though not as much of a miracle as a geothermal hole in every backyard.

 

[r-j]

Am I listening to the preaching of some religious cult here? What is this nonsense? You didn't provide a source, and the first one Google brought up was the Heartland Institute.

Amid tens of thousands of deaths from non-nuclear causes, not a single life-shortening radiation injury has occurred. Not one!

- Dr. Ted Rockwell​

Rather than spin it as radiation is benign, even safe, why not tell the truth? It's because everybody ran away, and is avoiding the radiation, which was CAUSED by nuclear reactors breaking and leaking. Why not tell the truth?

​

..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.

- Dr. Ted Rockwell​

Such absurd propaganda is insulting to the real human beings suffering right now.

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.

- Dr. Ted Rockwell​

I would punch this dirt bag in the face if I saw him.

James Randi exposed liars and cheats, and I cheered him on, especially because they profited off of their lies. Has Dr. Ted Rockwell published this in a peer reviewed medical journal? Is this scientific? Is there evidence? Then link to the studies. Show us the science.

Don't give us propaganda from a nuclear shill and expect it to fly.

The people of Japan protested the plants, they were afraid. They were reassured nothing could happen. They wouldn't lose everything due to some terrible accident.

TEPCO and the government lied to them. They deceived them.

And why were the reactors there? For profit. They made billions of a dollars each year. Not some paltry preacher scamming sick people, this was billions and billions of profit. Same for every other nuclear power plant.

And what now? Rather than admit there was danger, that things have gone completely wrong, that the cesium has ruined a lot of land, the disaster has ruined people's lives, ruined and killed and destroyed, they want to tell us that radiation isn't really that bad.

You disgust me. Dr. Ted Rockwell, you disgust and insult the intelligence.

 

[r-j]

You want to show the world how safe things are? Go study Chernobyl. There's someplace where it already happened. Publish some peer reviewed science and show the world how radioactive fall out from a reactor isn't that bad.

Don't just make up nonsense and try to sell it to the world.

 

[Safe-Keeper]

You want to show the world how safe things are? Go study Chernobyl. There's someplace where it already happened. Publish some peer reviewed science and show the world how radioactive fall out from a reactor isn't that bad.

So after all these pages we're back to square one?

 

[Eddie Dane]

You want to show the world how safe things are? Go study Chernobyl. There's someplace where it already happened. Publish some peer reviewed science and show the world how radioactive fall out from a reactor isn't that bad.

Don't just make up nonsense and try to sell it to the world.

I think you just failed the Turing test.

 

[r-j]

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.

- Dr. Jerry Cutler
​

So, we get an unsourced quote from somebody who is supposed to be an engineer, regarding health risk. No peer reviewed science. Not even a link to where he is supposed to have said it.

Heartland Institute shows up as the source. And all the skeptics here just buy this? This is ridiculous.

Especially when the person providing the information keeps insisting on peer reviewed studies for evidence.

 

[shadron]

And why were the reactors there? For profit. They made billions of a dollars each year. Not some paltry preacher scamming sick people, this was billions and billions of profit. Same for every other nuclear power plant.

...and Obviousman responds: "...same for every other business relationship in the entire world. With consideration for what "profit" means, every interpersonal relationship in the whole world." This is the sort of argument which really cringes me. You really believe that the Japanese people would have been happy without nuclear power had Tepco never existed? Hell, they started a world war over lack of oil about 80 years ago, and we now know that we are not enough different from them that we wouldn't have dome the same thing had the shoe been on the other foot. And its not just the Japanese, it's everyone.

And let's not hear that most Japanese didn't want it. As individuals, they all want comfortable lives. As constituents within their own system of government, they ultimately got what they want. They, like the Germans, may try to rule it out, but that will only encourage it elsewhere when they import it.

I'll tell you what. There will never be any solar panels or wind generators there either, if there is no profit in it. Never. Railing against someone making profit is not going to win your argument.

And what now? Rather than admit there was danger, that things have gone completely wrong, that the cesium has ruined a lot of land, the disaster has ruined people's lives, ruined and killed and destroyed, they want to tell us that radiation isn't really that bad.

You disgust me. Dr. Ted Rockwell, you disgust and insult the intelligence.

Beyond words.

 

[shadron]

Am I listening to the preaching of some religious cult here? What is this nonsense? You didn't provide a source, and the first one Google brought up was the Heartland Institute.

Rather than spin it as radiation is benign, even safe, why not tell the truth? It's because everybody ran away, and is avoiding the radiation, which was CAUSED by nuclear reactors breaking and leaking. Why not tell the truth?
Such absurd propaganda is insulting to the real human beings suffering right now.

Perhaps you should have tried http://tedrockwell.typepad.com/about.html or http://www.members.authorsguild.net/tedrockwell/, blogs he authors on the web. Those were the first two citations for him when I googled his name. Third was http://www.learningaboutenergy.com/, his own advocacy website. It seems you never look very hard for what you seek.

So there you have all his qualifications for speaking as he does. He doesn't seem to have an axe to grind; perhaps he is "tell[ing] the truth", at least as he sees it, and it would seem he has the qualifications for pretty good eyesight. So let's see your citations that say he's lying. I'm no more going to trust your word on that than you'd trust mine.

I presume your line "It's because everyone ran away..." is your explanation for the exclusion zone. If that's the case, then why are people being prevented from going back in? No, they were expelled by the government which is fearful of the danger to their own constituency, whether that danger has been demonstrated or not - in this case, definitely not.

I would punch this dirt bag in the face if I saw him.

James Randi exposed liars and cheats, and I cheered him on, especially because they profited off of their lies. Has Dr. Ted Rockwell published this in a peer reviewed medical journal? Is this scientific? Is there evidence? Then link to the studies. Show us the science.

Don't give us propaganda from a nuclear shill and expect it to fly.

...

You disgust me. Dr. Ted Rockwell, you disgust and insult the intelligence.

Take 5 minutes and go to http://www.members.authorsguild.net/tedrockwell/, and read his qualifications, link to his books and other articles. Your efforts to avoid learning and instead dragging in wholly emotional arguments is noted.

 

[r-j]

I already know he never published a peer reviewed article, much less did any research, did any experiments, nothing. He is a shill for industry and the whole issue is only on the table because some giant corporation, assisted by a corrupt government, ruined things with radiation.

It hasn't even been a year, and already the nuclear profiteers are desperate to spin the entire thing. Disgusting.

 

[Belz...]

"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.

Yeah, and we know that radiation stays in the body, forever.

Face it, you just look for factoids that seem to support your predetermined conclusion, and spew them here, declaring "victory".