Why do people fear nuclear power?

and I suppose you like to glow in the dark? or mutate into a 3-headed chimp? or get some really interesting cancer? I guess to a[n-ignorant-radiophile], ignorance is bliss? is that a third eye you have growing behind your ear? STOP STARING!

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

:bugeye:

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

As with any brilliant technology from fire onward, respect and responsibility are required. Those who are terrified of flames, or prone to burning themselves or others should obviously not be blacksmiths. Nuclear energy is just one of many paradigm-shifting emerging technologies that will soon challenge us, as technology always does- not to do anything catasrophically stupid. Human history is about this, about confronting fear, innovating, and advancing new technologies to survive in an existence where there are no guarantees, regardless of what we do.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

A very interesting thread, with quite a bit of solid science behind it. Thanks guys.

I am not 100% pro-nuke, as I have issues with the decomissioning of the Trojan nuclear power plant here in the Pacific Northwest, but those are more political concerns than scientific ones. However it is nice to see some of the anti-nuke hysteria debunked.

Is nuclear power 100% safe? No, and neither is driving to work every day. Yet I see cars smashed up on the side of the highway every week. There are bigger things to worry about than nuclear power.

Well, what about the future? All that waste? Frankly, I am more concerned with the US government financial waste and the debt burden it will place on the future. That will impact the next generation in a much greater proportion than an underground storage facility.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

brilliant? not quite, its an emerging tech, yep, needs more work to take care of all the waste. as for not doing anything stupid, that seems to be humanity's middlename right now, polluting ground water, we can't even get fish without mercury, a toxic metal that scientists have known since the 50's.

it would would be nice if people could figure out what to do with the waste, but it isn't a political problem, it's technical, otherwise what are they still waiting for? is it NIMBY? or a paradigm-paralazed mindset?

 

It can and will self spread as you call it if it were not kept in check. That is the problem. Anywhere the radioactive materials go will inevitably end up spreading them. Air blows and water flows. It needs to be contained.

I find that hard to belive! That amount or radiation is negligible of course and it doesn't have a real impact but I don't see a reasonable way of measuring such a small amount of radiation in such a large are through water when you cant even get an exact location of the RTG let alone retrieve it. I would like to know if it is truly feasible to measure this?

That is why nuclear power looks good. It does not harm the environment. The waste on the other hand does and that is the underlying problem.

I have some experience with government precautions also, though in another field. I find that they are always way to stringent. Safety is a high concern and I do not doubt nuclear safety standard keep radiation in check.

I would have to agree. The majority of the population does not understand radiation at all but most do agree that it is bad. Unfortunately most do not grasp exactly why or how it affects you. As Mr. Chips has been screaming all thread sunlight is a radioactive energy (don't know if I phrased that right) It is responsible for more cases of cancer that a nuclear plat will ever be yet there are plenty of people that cant get enough of their cancerous tans. Then they fear nuclear plants ?? Inconsistent huh ??

I cant belive less that 30 died from Chernobyl! That is a ridiculous statement. There were other deaths from fallout ect not to mention the Russian government was not exactly prone to release all the known data on the subject. They were not exactly proud about their mistake and it was a sufficiently corrupt system that they would 'dull' the complete story.

Conspiracy is a bit far fetched. 27 times is also a bit to large to cover up. I don't doubt it was worse but not nearly that bad.

In the end you have to separate Russia plants from USA plants. They are not even close to similar or ran in a similar manner. USA is much more safe and Chernobyl is not a premise for rejecting nuclear power. Stick with facts about the danger of American plants and we will see exactly how our situation is and weather we should use nuclear energy or not.

That leads to other problems though. What will it be stored in? You cannot find a material that bacteria cannot eat through. It doesn't exist. Life is hardy. You go a mile deep and you'll find that something will puncture your containers. It may take 100 years but that is OK, the radiation will still be kicking. Then where to? How bout ground water? Oceans? Soil? No matter where it escapes to it will have the potential to kill.

Worst idea I can think of. The sea (and its inhabitants) can be the most corrosive thing on earth. Anything can be opened in the deep. Good shield or not the se flows and has currents. Both to carry particles up and to carry them to shore. I am sure that materials will find their way to do harm if allowed into the sea.

This is the underlying problem: waste. Sure it can dissipate and 300 years may be inert enough to be safe but that is still a long time. The biggest problem I think is that the human mind cannot understand that time frame. Stokes Pennwalt and MacM are both knowledgeable in this area but not even they can fathom 300 years. That is a long time. Should we switch to nuclear power then the amount of waste produced would skyrocket and we would be dealing with huge waste buildup. Burying it will not help. Eventually all that waste will escape and its buildup will cause those harmless douses to become fatal. Nuclear energy is the future and an excellent source of power but we are unable to utilize it until the waste can be dealt with. If only all that research in nuclear weapons went to disposal of waste...

All in all I belive that launching it into the sun is the best recourse. That will ensure that it is safe but it is not currently feasible. My figures may be off but last I looked it was $9,000 per pound of payload to get it into space. That is obviously not feasible. Millions per year per plant is not coast effective.

Nuclear power need a little time, but I belive it will come around.

Also I wonder what effect launching waste to the sun would have. Reducing the earths gross weight would effect orbit but I doubt it would be any great effect.

Excellent posts by Stokes Pennwalt and MacM. Very informative. I learned much.

 

I AM F AQ2,

Thank you for your post. It was excellent. Good to see a level head on the issue. I do have a couple of clarifications to add however.

While this is a true statement, the primary goal should be to stop producing waste for storage and to recycle the most hazardous waste - i.e. spent fuel rods. That not only resolves over 95% of the issue but lowers fuel and operating costs of nuclear power.

I would think this is based on calculations as no useful data could be measured.

This is one of those really unknowable things. We have never had a radiation free enviornment because solar power is radiation (provides life and without it nothing would be here) and other natural radiation is all around us in small quantities. The simple fact that we could not exist without radiation and the possibility that radiation may hve actually contributed to evolution means we cannot claim "No Nukes" is a sane policy. We simply need to continue to study the affects and try to ascertain at what level radiation can be considered clearly harmful. But obviously a little radiaion is not only valuable but necessary for life to exist at all.

We must always continue to balance the hazards of radiation against other harmful or potentially lethal and avoidable things in modern society - i.e. such as over 50,000 deaths/year in the USA due to traffic accidents (many by drunk drivers.

I have less problems with efforts to minimize contamination than I do with the adverse opinion it has created in the public and the added cost it has caused nuclear power both of which reduce the benefits of nuclear power.

You may have miss understood this issue. This figure is the official loss "Directly" from the initial event and the immediate clean up. Clearly there have been other deaths via illness over time. But not nearly as many as detractors like to claim. This is clear from the WHO studies over the years. WHO is hardly a conspirator or directly impacted or biased organization in this issue.

I think this is a fair statement.

This is true but one must not forget the much larger volume of radioactive carbon being released directly into the atmoshere by conventional power plants. To be fair and not improperly biased against nuclear power one would have to argue all forms of man made power should be eliminated, particularily conventional power! Hardly makes sense when viewed rationally.

I think I agree that burial in deep, dry caverns would be better in the long run, although highly radioactive material released into the ocean IF spread around to maximize the dillution wouldn't pose any real measurable hazard. The problem becomes one of localized hot spots and concentrated contamination.

Actually in the most general way longer decay times become less hazardous. This is because the body tends to repair itself and can hence tolerate lower levels of radiation better. Short lived highly radioactive source kill immediately (or within a couple of months) by radiation poisoning, Moderate radiation can result in death indirectly by illness many years later, long decay means lower radiation and no immediate and less long term risk.

That wouldn't be of concern. However, the cost and the potential for contamination by a failed lift off of a cargo rocket make it unfeasiable. The only really feasiable method to date is "Don't create storable waste" recycle the most dangerous waste which is spent fuel rods.

ATTACHMENTS: Old MacM in his younger days standing atop the reactor pressure vessle head of the MH1A - Worlds First Floating Nuclear Power Plant and Installing a cruciform control rod into a new fuel bundle array. The photo is through 30 feet of ultra-pure reactor grade water (less than 3 ppb impurities (that IS "b" not "m").

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

I still don't see attachments. Is it just my computer or does anybody see attachments? I PM'd James R. and Porfiry about this problem and it doesn't seem to be getting fixed.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

then I guess you wouldn't mind living down-wind? what's to understand? radiation bad, radiation long-lasting, radiation waste, radiation NIMBY

stokes wants a job, funny how he timed it to 25th anniv of three Mile Island, Coincidence?

 

Haven't read any other posts in this thread, but posting my $.02

In college one of my professors worked at the Lawrence Livermore Labs and worked in some nuclear dept., but was a big proponent of nuclear power. He was big into the field, was very knowledgeable in it, so I trust what he says.

Keep in mind he went way more into detail, and thoroughly explained it all, but I don’t remember all of that.

He mentioned how nuclear power is really our only power alternative in the future. Solar/wind energy doesn't create enough energy and regarding hydroelectric, we've damned about all of the places we can without really hurting the environment. The green house effect will continue to get worse…exponentially as more and more countries industrialize, so burning fossil fuels are out of the question. Nuclear power is incredibly safe (not 100%, but what is?) The Chernobyl crap happened because that Russian plant was really a piece of shit, not up to par as it should have been...not safe at all. The American plants are pretty safe (USA generally overdoes safety to the point it’s not cost effective). People make a big deal about 3mile island, but nobody actually died. I don't remember the details from it, but I do remember it's nowhere near as bad as people think it to be. Wish I remembered the details from 3mile island and what happened. The excess radiation gleamed from living near a nuclear power plant is less than that produced by your own body, in a year less that that gotten from smoking 1 cigarette, less than that from an x-ray, is less than that gotten from flying in an airplane...and some other things I can't remember. Dealing with waste, he mentioned that the best thing would be to separate out the uranium/plutonium. With the uranium/plutonium out the rest of the waste would only need to be stored somewhere like Yakka Mtn for a few hundred years, which isn’t too bad. I don't know the details on what can be done to handle the waste, but it's really not as bad as people make it out to be, from any angle it is by far the best power alternative. The fact that the current sitting time for some of the stored waste is 10,000 years posted by the government is just stupid. Who knows where we'll be in 10,000 years, or if we’ll still be here. There are better ways to handle it than that, but that's politics for you. Lot of people making decisions in fields they know nothing about.

Keep in mind that people FREAK OUT about anything with the word “nuclear” in it. MRIs used to be controversial, because the original name was Nuclear Magnetic Imaging (or something close, but it had nuclear in it), but scientists changed the name to Magnetic Resonance Imaging and took out the “nuclear” and everything was fine and dandy, should give you an idea of how public opinion is given that most public isn’t educated very well or very well informed.. There was also a poll of the League of Women Voters, and college students, and both groups listed nuclear power as a few hundred times more dangerous than it actually was, it was very low on the list, but they ranked as one of the highest.

I guarantee you if everyone in the nation knew the truth about nuclear power we’d be well into it. The problem is that there are so many poorly educated people, people that consider reading shit off of the internet an education. But again, a more educated public would improve many things.

This info is very general by the way, it was long ago, so I'm not too clear on the details (and I’m tired). Need to get an expert in here and clear this shit up about nuclear power though. Can look up all the "facts" you want, but I trust a nuclear physicist over any of the shit said on this board

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

I knew the guy pretty well, he talked about nuclear power quite a bit, explained it, how safe it was, I believe him. The thing I remember most is that you get more radiation from smoking 1 cigarette than you do from living near a nuclear power plant for a year. If you look up statistics on real sites, and find real solid info you’ll see what I mean. Sorry if I’m off topic, haven’t read this thread and it’s too late.

 

blackmonkeystatue,

Not off target at all. Good post and quite accurate on the overall safety and need for nuclear power.

 

^^ seconded. Well done.

You do realize that the food you eat in one year exposes you to about 4400 times the radiation that spending a year next to a nuclear power plant does, right? Concisely, the most daunting obstacle with nuclear energy at the moment is cost, which is symptomatic of a hostile NRC plagued by draconian restrictions installed ages ago by the NIMBYists among us. Waste disposal runs a close second, but since I've said my piece on that in this thread already, I won't bother anybody with it again.

And actually, this thread was a coincidence with the timing. Kinda funny now that you mention it. Also, the resurgence of nuclear energy in the US is imminent: http://www.guardian.co.uk/usa/story/0,12271,1190710,00.html

 

Yes, I like how that report finishes. Imminent indeed despite the snafus. The rest of this post is just quoting from that news article. :

But there have been worrying incidents. The Davis Beese plant in Ohio run by FirstEnergy has been closed since early 2002 after it was discovered that an accumulation of acid had almost eaten through the six-inch steel reactor vessel.

Two other obstacles loom large. The first is what to do with nuclear waste. The second is what would happen if plants were targeted by terrorists.

The government is developing a plan to bury nuclear waste at Yucca mountain in Nevada, 90 miles north-west of Las Vegas, but faces opposition from nearby residents. The concerns don't stop there. Moving waste across the country on trains is a security risk.

And New York residents note that one of the planes that crashed into the World Trade Centre in 2001 flew directly over the Indian Point plant on the Hudson river, 35 miles from midtown Manhattan.

 

ok, now I need to stats, where did you get this info? if that is true, then lets look at stats on illnesses for n. plant workers & families down-wind. who provided the stats? not the same scientists that work on n. power? you know, honest people like tabacco scientists? hmmm?

 

You can begin here.

 

Okay, we can and do handle exposure to some radiation. That is no justification to increase people's exposure. I dare say, it is evidence that we should not add any or we'll get more than our DNA was designed to handle.

 

Mr Chips,

You aren't correct but lets assume you were. Then the first order of business MUST be to shut down all fossil fuel burning processes and plug that great big hole it has punched in our ozone layer which has caused a much greater exposure to radiation than all nuclear plants combined including TMI and Chernoybl.

 

Yes? Are you implying that somehow our DNA evolved to handle more radiation than has been present in our environment? Can you give me some hard core data backing that up? I would not be adverse to doing what you surmise as a logical consequence as long as it were done without overly taxing human welfare or the integrity of our biosphere.

Remember that little thing called the biosphere? You know it does not figure into many people's plans but I assure you, it is more real than any nation.

edited to add some color and not red, sheesh. I don't want to see red and wonder why you should want to use a color that makes you look like you are in such a state of angst. Harder to see you as unbiased in your communication with that red shit.

BTW, just park that picture on a site for the purpose (recent thread in the computer tech section on such a free site) then you can just imbed it in the post. Sounds like a neat picture.

For example:

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

Wow, leave for a day and hundred posts pop up

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Actually yes, I would not mind at all. It would actually be much more pleasant than living near a conventional fossil fuel plant. I wouldn't mind the water either, I hear it warms up the immediate beach areas as it uses it to cool off the coolant.

I quite agree. The ignorance really shows through when our government outlaws such an obvious storage place for nuclear waste: in another reactor core that generates power. I must ask though, how much of the waste problem does that actually solve. I don't belive that the waste could be used to continue generating power for a long enough time to make an impact on actual waste generated, just allow us to use it for longer and therefore not create as much waste in the end. I don't think that the waste would make any sufficient impact on the issue. Then again I am not as well versed on the subject. Could you shed some light on the actual impact that would have (Like how much less power it generates than a 'normal' nuclear plant and how long the waste can be used)?

What do you mean? If it is a calculation and no measurements than you do not really know the impact it could have had!

Not really true. We do know the effects of large doses of radiation, cancer and death. Smaller doses we can repair the damage from before it affects us. We do know that. It is also known that with the simple small radiation that we are exposed to by nature can be lethal also. Sunburns can cause cancer if it happens often and extreme enough. The main thing that we have to look at is the buildup of radiation. We get so much from the sun, food, things, people ect and then we have to step back and say will this little more I am adding bring us over the threshold. That is the problem with the waste. Which brings me to..

What I have a problem with is that an even dilution would still have adverse affects on the population. You say that the contamination may not have a real measurable hazard but is that taking into account all the waste? A quick search on the net puts America at 21% reliance on nuclear power and the world at about 16%. I found a lot of sites that agree on this number so it seems accurate. The best estimate I can find on waste creation is 1 tone a year IF it is also reprocessed. That is a per plant figure. You are talking over a 100 plants in America producing 20% energy so to switch to nuclear dependency would require over 500 each producing 1 tone a year. Then you also have to add in the fact that the radiation is long lived. So in a 300 year period America could conceivably produce 150,000 tones of radioactive waste before any of it is safe. On top of that we haven't figured in energy demand, which will ALWAYS increase as time passes. That is only America also. If you take all this into account an evenly diluted waste problem may raise the levels of radiation to dangerous levels. This STILL is not considering that many other creatures (especially sea creatures that are used to shielding) may be more vulnerable causing massive ecological damage. This is why we need to figure out what to do with the waste now, without resorting to burying or dumping it.

I would like hear what you have to say especially on the amount of yearly waste produced per plant. That figure was harder to find than I thought so I couldn't really cross reference it.

As said above, that is only if there isn't more of it. Even a low radiating material can be dangerous if it sticks around long enough to build up.

Just wandering with my thoughts there. I do feel that all the benefits of nuclear energy are wasted once you use a fossil fuel rocket to take care of the waste.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

However, space may soon become a lot more feasible as more and more technologies are created to get up there. It may be a feasible solution in the near future. As to the contamination risks if an incident were to occur, I think they can be virtually eliminated if the payload is shielded properly. Hey stick it in the little black box, that always survives.

Yes but driving is a bad example(Unrelated., there would be the same deaths no matter where you got your power). In past posts you compared it to fossil fuels. That makes for an obvious case in nuclear powers favor. It is the way to go and I agree whole heartily. That, however, does not disparage us from having to deal with its evils. Buying them is not dealing with it. It has to be taken care of. The choice cannot simply be made on the fact that it is safer at this current moment because nuclear waste is more long lived than other waste. It may be a hurtle but I belive that if the general fear were replace with knowledge that a solution would be much easier and a LOT quicker. It is as blackmonkeystatue said:

Added because Mr Chips posted while I was writing.

This is similar to the point that I was making. We are used to radiation and we heal the damages we receive at a certain rate. We cannot exceed that rate or it will cause us harm. However that rate will be grater than our everyday exposure as seen in the fact that we currently live in a coal burning, electrical crazy world. Hey that TV you watch and this computer screen I am typing on raise that level quite a bit (though the radiation from tubes is likely to be of some help in causing vision problems). We need to avoid getting anywhere near that safe threshold. Nuclear plants put out so little radiation that it would help overall radiation by reducing the fossil dependance but we just need to be responsible with the waste.

 

Mr Chips,

Yes? Are you implying that somehow our DNA evolved to handle more radiation than has been present in our environment? No I didn't. Can you give me some hard core data backing that up? Not since I didn't say that. I would not be adverse to doing what you surmise as a logical consequence as long as it were done without overly taxing human welfare or the integrity of our biosphere. So you want to keep conventional fuels even though they have released more radiation and done more damage to the enviornment?


I have suspended using a distinct seperator, i.e. - different color for my response at your request. I hope you find it easier to read.

 

I AM F AQ2,

A typical figure for a new fuel core in a BWR is 3% excess. That is a new core only has 3% more fissile material than the minimum to achieve a chain reaction. So when you have depledted the core and are ready to refuel then instead of the core being 103% it is now merely 100%.

103/3 = 34.3333. That means there is actually enough fuel there to output the same power for over 34 years but you must add the 3% back to be able to maintain a chain reaction.

My point was that we also know that without any radiation we would die. There is no clear minimum limit nor is there a known optimum known amount but we clearly must receive some to survive and to have come into existance.

This would be what is called waste after the precious fuel being flushed down the toilet and highly radioactive material are extracted and put into recycled use.

That figure doesn't surprise me but then to be useful we must know the radiation lvel and type of radiation being given off. In you rather long paragraph there was a sort statement which indicated this was with the fuel, etc being reprocessed. Therefore the waste really becomes benign. You are talking about rubbers gloves, coveralls, rags, some tools, etc. Also are they concentrting their liquid waste or storing 499 tons of pure water contaminated by 1 ton of radioactive impurities?

In any case if one could get a good figure you could then put it in terms of actual "Curies" being dumped and not "Tons" being dumped.

Again one needs to consider not only curies but type of radiation. Alpha can be stopped by a single sheet of typing paper.

I don't agree with that point. Properly concentrated a single rocket could carry off the waste from many times the amount of conventional fuel that would be required to have replaced the power. I don't know the exact energy content of the rocket fuel mix, hydrazine, etc. but as an example if you were to assume the million gallons currently used for lift off was gasoline it would be about 1.36E11 BTU. That translates to 1.92E11 Horsepower-Seconds or 4.55 MW power plant for a year.

 

MacM, your last communication to me contained misinformation. Look a bit and you will see my sentiments about fossil fuel burning.

I would appreciate your expanding on how I was wrong about assuming that the background radiation we have evolved with is basically what our DNA is designed to handle. Seems to me that if this is wrong according to your reckoning then you are claiming that our DNA evolved to handle more than the radiation we evolved with. Can you give me some logical consistency within your communications?

Also, was that some kind of joke about color use? I see why most can not fathom your Unikef hypothesis. Perhaps it is a pipe dream and subject to the same misinformation promulgation, logical inconsistency and distaste for common courtesy as you demonstrate here. How come others don't use colors as you? Could it be because you are a superior person or maybe the converse?