Why do people fear nuclear power?

Mr Chips,

Personally I could care less what Mr Chips thinks. He can reject the experience of thousands over decades and instead speak of maybes and mights. TMI has not caused any known deaths. You get more exsposure to radiation in one day at the beach than people in Hershey, PA get in a year from TMI.

Your diatribe contains no facts what-so-ever.

There is no reason to argue with you. You have no ability to accept anything other than your pre-established view. Your attempts to start a personal attacks war shows your lack of any actual evidence and ability to have a discussion rather than make unqualified assertions.

BYE.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

To make such absolute statements without any apparent education, experience or real knowledge is extremely pathetic.
What goes around....

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Persol,

ANS: You should know.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

http://www.ratical.org/radiation/KillingOurOwn/KOO14.html

http://www.greens.org/s-r/10/10-05.html

http://www.boisestate.edu/history/ncasner/hy210/3mile.htm

http://ehp.niehs.nih.gov/docs/1997/105-8/correspondence.html

http://www.cnn.com/HEALTH/9702/24/nuclear.cancer/

Heck, the above were found searching "'three mile island' map" I wasn't even looking for deaths from the TMI accident.

I've started to look at the data concerning Chernobyl. Man that is depressing stuff. Some organizations of some pretty knowledgeable and well equipped scientists do not hold the same opinion as MacM as to how many deaths have and continue to happen due to the Chernobyl accident. What is the difference between the coming estimates and MacM's uncited claim of a couple dozen? Let's just say that someone is off by many many magnitudes.

 

Mr Chips,

I already know that it will do no particular good to try and reason with you but for the sake of other readers I will comment.

Of the links you posted only the last two appear to be even half way scientific. They contained the following:

ANS: I am very much reminded of the case at Ft Belvoir, Va, when the SM-1 was first put into operation. Even though there was no accident or release of any kind to stir the human emotion, many law suites for all sorts of percieved damages were filed by people in the area.

One a couple miles away across the Potomac river filed suite because the paint on her house peeled.

The simple fact is there is NO clear case for deaths from TMI. Those of us that have worked these plants and have been exposed to many many times the radiation of the general population show absolutely no affects. In the case of pregnant women and infants, yes there is some question as to exposure limits. And it is prudent to not take risks by deliberate exposure such as X-Rays, etc.

But there simply is no low level hazard or safety data. Only reason can be applied. That is knowledge of dosages and types of radiation which can be determined generally show that exposure to low levels of radiation occurs from a variety of sources and people only become paranoid and irrational when that exposure "might" come from a nuclear reactor.

For example we know that smoking increases the risk of cancer, so does a sun burn and so does exposure to radiation from a nuclear power plant. But what does that actually mean?

It means "One Burnt Bar-B-Q Steak" is equivelent to "One Carton of Cigarettes". It means one year exposure limits imposed by standards is far less than one day at the beach. Now these are normal levels and exposures.

Clearly illness and death are consquences from high levels of exposure with some statistical possibilities for illness from untreated low levels of certain kinds of ingested radioactivity. But all these things are actually fairly well known and understood.

It is also known and understood that coal fired technology releases many times more radioactive carbon into the air than any nuclear accident has including Chernobyl. The difference being only the concentration locally for that event. Also that coal has caused considerable death and hardship via black lung disease, etc. The choice is not coal or nuclear it is modern civilization or back to horse and buggies.

I support solar and wind power but those are insufficient technologies as of today to offset the loss of the hydrocarbon based energy industry. Oil is indeed going to run out and people are going to have to decide their future. Such decisions must be made with a clear head and not by radicals with blinders on.

What happened at TMI simply was not one of those cases.

PS: Mr Chips, I don't have to get my information from anti-nuke web pages.

The titles such as "Deaths from TMI" are telling of the agenda of the authors.

See attachment. This is a 180 page report.

 

My first thought of this use of "ANS:" was that you meant it to stand for "ANSWER:" but this made you look fairly inept as if you had all of the answers and were not sharing an opinion. There are many now-a-days who take the understanding of the scientific method to heart and realize that one can only at any time offer their own opinion. To claim that one has the "Answers" rather than offering their understanding does not build trust, which is what you want people to have for your desired goal of public acceptance of the safety and promise of nuclear energy. Instead it is a talking down, it is an assumption of superiority, of being god like. Well, we already have god here, one who is incapable of fallacy and knows everything in the guise of Stokey. So, I was wondering, could you possibly mean something else by this abbreviation.

It dawned on me that an interpretation of "ANGST:" seems to fit better which explains the red color more appropriately. Rather than being a symbol of warning of impending danger or that you want people who disagree with you to "stop" as if you are leveling a threat at them, I believe you are seeing red and want others to see red because any one with an opposing opinion or the information offered in opposition to the blanket acceptance of nuclear power as safe as milk toast, causes you deep anxiety. How could you possibly admit that a large part of your life has been spent making money in an enterprise that caused deaths and suffering? Obviously your self-esteem is deeply tied to this subject area so you must explain away any and all data that disagrees with your desire to not see yourself as a "bad guy" (seems to me that you and Stokey do tend to see things in black and white, good guys verses bad guys rather than misunderstanding verses understanding).

I am sorry that this subject seems so alarming and disturbing to you. I do feel that it is best that you continue to use these methods of encoding your communications as it does help people determine who is approaching these considerations with a level head and who is quite emotionally attached to the outcome. Go for it.

Heck, can we have more than one god here?

 

Mr Chips,

Your concern about writing style certainly qualifies your contributions. ANS: Means "my answer to your post". I have not said, nor does it mean "THE answer", which is infact the very context of your posts.

This is a case of the kettle calling the pot black. Seperation of post by color makes the discussion much easier to follow rather trying to determine who said what. Bitch about something real for a change.

LOL. I don't seem to be the one alarmed and disturbed here. I am quite comfortable with my knowledge and experience on the issue. It seems you that are alarmed and disturbed beyond justification BTW.

ANS: Perhaps you don't find content meaningful. Not a surprise.

ANS: There is only one here making unqualified absolute statements. It isn't me.

Let me suggest most here can recognize a level head vs those that ignore the irony that a food product purchased at your local health food store can be claimed to cause a nuclear inncident, a spill that would require an investigation and probably a Congressional hearing!.

No unfortunately you and others that refuse to consider nuclear radiation is no different than other sources of natural exposure and it being only the magnitude that counts; plus disregards the safety built into the PWR design, actual exposure the public has received vs such other sources, that promotes this public lunacy (at a signifigant detriment to the US BTW.)

 

READERS:

Since Mr Chips would rather dabble in name calling and unsupported assertions I thought I would interject a bit of realisim.

I draw your attention to paragraph 3, page 1 from the following offical information.

Also, somewhere in my archives, I have a document simular to this list but is more extensive. For example if my memory serves me one gets about 20 mrem per year just sleeping next to your wife (or somebodyelse's wife) for a year.

http://tis.eh.doe.gov/whs/rhmwp/Radiation-in-Perspective-3-19.pdf

This document infact shows that you will die 30 days sooner if you sleep with a woman all your life. That is higher than exposure to radiation with all the nuke jplants in the world.

 

"There is only one here making unqualified absolute statements. It isn't me."

You really can't see what you just said there?

Quote:

Let me suggest most here can recognize a level head vs those that ignore the irony that a food product purchased at your local health food store can be claimed to cause a nuclear inncident, a spill that would require an investigation and probably a Congressional hearing!. No unfortunately you and others that refuse to consider nuclear radiation is no different than other sources of natural exposure and it being only the magnitude that counts; plus disregards the safety built into the PWR design, actual exposure the public has received vs such other sources, that promotes this public lunacy (at a signifigant detriment to the US BTW.)

End Quote.

Talk about public lunacy why don't you. Ah, I love it when a debate just becomes so simplified and transparent. Brings a sense of finality to the process. Stokey, are you really gonna let this fool continue to destroy your hard efforts? I must admit, he makes you look a lot more intelligent. Too bad he's trying to argue your position.

 

Jesus, are you retarded or something? I posted a link to the fucking NRC's analysis of TMI as an addendum to my own a few pages back. That so completely trumps anything your agenda-driven no-nukes sources can muster that it puts the issue to bed completely.

You know, if you actually bothered reading what people who are clearly more knowledgeable than you about the topic post, you might actually learn something instead of coming off as such a raving asshat. Perhaps if you support your assertions with science rather than uninformed rhetoric you'll gain a little prestige.

 

I see that data, Mickey. What about the claims that TMI releases led to exposures of 120 mrem per hour for many hours for some? I guess you just off handedly dismiss any claims that low level radiation is both cumulative and detrimental.

Thank all that is an "official" release. Wouldn't want to think it had anything to do with supporting some lobbyists position.

 

Stokey, there are recent and old reports about how TMI was just peaches and cream, more than that one reference you remind us of now. I could not and did not read all of your posts here. You got into that preaching phase and I did not see it as an attempt to communicate but rather as an attempt to overwhelm.. Here is not the place to post the company line, the vested interest, both governmental and corporate. It is the stuff that has been actively suppressed, that is not commonly reported that I find most interesting and pertinent.

 

Power corrupts. Absolute power corrupts absolutely. You can expect the most powerful to make claims supporting the continued existence and business of the most powerful and you can expect it to be corrupt. You can also expect to find many lackeys within the industry who have had their abilities to reason, communicate and adhere to scientific principles corrupted to ridiculous ends.

Keep it up guys. There is no one giving more strong evidence that the virtual opposite hypothesis of this thread may have more validity.

 

Mr Chips,

ANS: I'll skip all the other chit-chat. You make this to easy.

Attachment Exposure #1 is in REM not RAD I have to wonder if you even know what those terms mean?. A Rad or Rem is 1,000 mrad or mrem KEEP THAT IN MIND.

Now there is a huge difference between a 120 mrem release (plume) and Curies release. I could have 120 mrem in a 1 inch pipe flowing 1 quart in a 24 hour period, how many Curies is that and what is the exposure to the general population if I spread that quart of radioactive (120 mrem) gas over the state of Ohio, Pa., Ny, etc., etc?

Your data not only is less than the average radiation you receive annually from sources of nature IF YOU STOOD IN THE PLUME ITSELF THE ENTIRE TIME.

But 120 mrem is 0.12 Rem. Further more depending what is in that plume alpha, beta, gamma, etc, 1,000 Rad could be the equivelent of 100 mrem or it could be lethal it depends on the type of radiation and if it is external exposure or ingested and the rate at which it was absorbed.

REM means Roentgen Equivelent Man. Curies is a more quantitative term. mrem is a rate term, generally based on hourly exposure. So if you stood in the 120 mrem plume for one hour you would have a dose of 120mrem which is nothing. The general population adjacent to the plant and in the path of the plume (since it diluted as the area expanded would have been only fractions of an mrem.

There is even another term RBE (Relative Biological Effectivness) such that depending upon the type of exposure in REM, how much affect does it have biologically. Your data is totally devoid any such correlation or useful application information.

Fractions of NOTHING.

Note the first listing in this table is 0 - 25 REM that is 0 - 25,000 mrem. Just where does that put your 120 mrem hazard, even if you wrongfully assume the entire population absorbed that much radiation and forget that is just the release from the plant that must be spread over thousands of square miles.!!!!!

More to the point is Attachment Exposure #2. Look at paragraph 2 and the table. Then realise that the actual exposure (if not zero) to the TMI population was 1 - 2 mrem over a few days. Take note that this table is in r/min, not the normal r or mrem/hr.

No I'm afraid you are just a loose cannon shooting off your mouth with no substance to back your paranoia. We were generally (without approval in an emergency) limited to 5 Rad/Year (5,000 mrad).

I really hate to inform you but there seems to be only one inept person in this thread and it isn't Stokes or I.

In answer to the title of this thread "It is people like you that don't know and don't want to know the truth but just talk like chicken little.

The fact is to get the equivelent of a sun burn (which you can get in 2-3 hours at the beach, at 1/2 r/min (500 mrad/min = 30,000 mrad/hr) it takes 75 hours to get a sun burn.

If I were you I wouldn't push this issue until you have something important to contribute.

 

READERS:

Lets add a bit more meat to the BBQ here. The following is the Class Action suite formed as a result of over 2,000 claims of personal health injury due to TMI.

Note that TMI acknowledges that at their fence line the release reached 500 mrem but note that legally the courts required the persons to show exposure to cancer causing levels of around 10 REM. That is people 1 - 20 miles away would have to have received and absorbed more than 20 times the level measured at the fence line!.

I don't have the exact dimentsions but lets assume the fence line is 250 feet from the plant and it is 1/2 mile to the nearest homes across the rivers (TMI is on an island). That means the diluted 500 mrem at the fence would be :

Nearest Homes 0.223 mrem

20 miles away 1.39E-4 mrem almost 14/1,000,000,000 of the required 10 REM to cause cancer!.

Certainly one can assume less than homogeneous dillution. That is a plume could rise and remain concentrated but there was no weather conditions which supported the arguement that there was a high rise plume.

The evidence does not support any illness or death from the TMI accident. Sorry to disappoint you. This case has gone to the Supreme Court of the US and has been strongly in favor of TMI the entire process. And for good cause because the release was so meaningless.

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/reaction/readings/tmi.html

I really hope Mr Chips has never received a sun burn in his life. That would be the equivelent of how many mrems? For how long?

One final note: Not a bad guess by an inept person from the nuclear field. I guessed above 1 - 2 mrem exposure. The Courts found an average exposure of 1.4 mrem to 2,000,000 people.

Mr Chips sun burn would be 2,250,000 mrem accumulated over 75 hours!

 

That's all you needed to say. Good game.

 

Mr Chips,

ANS: As clarification, rather than let you distort the record here. The 2 - 3 dozen was being generous. I think the actual figure of those killed initially (30 days) was under 18. The above post was not an effort to quantify possible deaths after that, particulairly from cancer 1 - 2 or more decades since. I'll start a search and see what the latest estimates are but I can assure you they are far fewer that those that have died from black lung minning coal and/or developed cancer by exposure to radioactive carbon from coal plants .

I thought I was mistaken after these many years but I was mistaken, it was 2 - 3 dozen.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Gee lets shut down all nuclear power plants.

****************** Extract from URL Below ********************

The April 1986 disaster at the Chernobyl nuclear power plant in the Ukraine (see map of regions surrounding Chernobyl) was the product of a flawed Soviet reactor design coupled with serious mistakes made by the plant operators in the context of a system where training was minimal. It was a direct consequence of Cold War isolation and the resulting lack of any safety culture.

NB: "Chernobyl" is the well-known Russian name for the site; "Chornobyl" is preferred by Ukraine.

click to enlarge
Source: OECD NEA

The accident destroyed the Chernobyl-4 reactor and killed 30 people, including 28 from radiation exposure. A further 209 on site were treated for acute radiation poisoning and among these, 134 cases were confirmed (all of whom recovered). Nobody off-site suffered from acute radiation effects. However, large areas of Belarus, Ukraine, Russia and beyond were contaminated in varying degrees.

The Chernobyl disaster was a unique event and the only accident in the history of commercial nuclear power where radiation-related fatalities occurred.*

http://www.world-nuclear.org/info/chernobyl/inf07.htm

*******************************************************

Please note that Mr Chips is right there is a conspiracy. The above statement is misleading they inserted the word "Commercial" so they didn't have to include the SL-1 in Idaho where three US Army operators died due to an uncontrolled nuclear excursion by virtue of a faulty design. Since it was basic research and not commercial it doesn't count.

Also the book doesn't tell it the way it was. They did not find the third body and it take several days to remove. It took several days to find the body. A hole was cut, several days after the accident, through the building from outside and a TV camera at the end of a remote boom was inserted into the reactor chamber for a look see. The camera pans around looking at the unbelievable devastation inside. The reactor (several tons) is located (came to rest 10 feet from its original mounting). As the camera sweeps it looks up toward the ceiling and passes something, stops, backs up and zooms in. It is our third guy. Hanging from the ceiling with a control rod through his chest. He has been inside 120 - 140 F, high humidity, enviornment for almost 10 days. That is 43 years ago but it still gives me pause to think about that image.

These were fellow members of our small highly dedicated unit, doing basic research and development of a new technology. So I take reactor safety far more serious than you bubba and I don't take your flippant, sarcastic attitude lightly. You can't fill their shoes with piss. Nor mine for that matter. So run your mouth all you want, the readers here I feel are intelligent enough and know how to read and know you are simply full of sh_t. BYE

I don't know why but the ANPP attachment is a mere dot in the upper left corner. If you put your mouse over it and then move down to the colored square that appears at the lower left and click you get the image.

 

i just want to concur with those who agree that nuclear is the way to go. the fear is all overhyper by movies and the media. nuclear really is the way to go. im not going to post any argument because i think it is futile. good luck convincing those who fall prey to stigmas

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

Shrubby Pegasus,

ANS: Thanks. I don't think any of us believe that you can flip the flipped but I posted in hopes that a few actual facts might slow down the converts to that way of not-thinking.

 

Any one, do your own research. There is a lot of information that contradicts virtually everything MacM and Stokes raise in support of their idolatry of nuclear reactors. Stokes and MacM state that they know unequivocally what is right and what is not and I find that this is down right suspicious behavior as no one knows that certainly about anything. I also find that there appears to be many with the same zeal and determination as Stokes and MacM that causes one to have to question the validity of the statistics reported by many organizations and individuals. There are researchers who claim that low level radiation is more dangerous than currently accepted exposure limits (which incidentally have been consistently lowered with time). There are people who claim real conspiracy to decrease public alarm. I'd like to see the videos smuggled out of Chernobyl by a physicist who claimed the Chernobyl accident was some 27 times worse than official reports (he died from his exposure). My own opinon is that conspiracy is the norm for all human endeavors.

I do want to mention that it has been estimated that if all of humanity were to use as many resources as the average American, it would take three Earth's to satisfy the current population. Another estimate suggests that more than half of the energy used in the USA is wasted due to inefficiency. Germany has started on some programs of improving the efficiency of energy use and they now claim that 70% is wasted and can be saved through better planning and implementation with virtually no change in standard of living. These are not exact figures but conservation I see has not been mentioned by Stokey or Mickey and should be our first priority.

Y'all have fun now and I hope that whatever we decide to do collectively works well for us all. I'm launching myself into some serious education now and can not waste my time here much any more. I do hope to get a transcript of the last speech by Edward Teller concerning cold fusion soon and will post that in the threads I have going about the subject in this forum ASAP.

Thank you MacM and Stokes for engaging me in this little escapade. Take care, there is very little given away.