umm.... yeah?
the same guy who said this:

Quote :

"There is also that fear factor because a lot of people don't understand how safe nuclear power is."

3/1/2009 11:17:15 PM

go figure

3/1/2009 11:18:28 PM

Quote :

"Let's see what I can find. Nanosolar is building a 430-megawatt plant in California and 620-megawatt one in Germany. We'll see how long that takes. Their funding comes in at the low hundreds of millions, but I don't know how much goes to each project. As you've probably heard, Google promises to generate a gigawatt of renewable energy and sell it cheaper than coal power within years. Yes, those cunning internet capitalists have decided to put their money in solar, wind, and geothermal. Not fission."

MWe or MWt? And I assume that does not include capacity factor, which is 50% - tops. Likely more like 30-35%. Compare this to 85-90% for the current nuclear fleet.

There's a reason plenty of electric utilities around the world - not just here - are still putting good money into nuclear. Because it works.

3/1/2009 11:26:08 PM

Quote :

"I'm not sure about waste, but I know uranium mining has royally fucked entire communities. I believe it could be done safely, yet don't trust claims from the bosses. They'll always say it's safe, that the problems are over, and so on. I'm not strictly opposed to fission technology, I just think it's too risky given the history. "

are you saying that the raw uraninite is hazardous?

as a heavy metal, it is no worse or better than something like lead

as an alpha emitter, the dermis will stop the particles with no ill effect

in fuel fabrication, the only real hazardous portion of the job is ensuring that there isnt enough material to go critical, and the nrc and doe require that they do a mass balance on the plant so there is practically zero release into the environment (>99% accounted, and once it gets to that point there is so much money invested in it that it would be economic suicide for fabricators not to take care to ensure that all of it leaves in a sellable form)

if it wasnt for the oil on your skin causing contaminating the fuel, you could handle it, just like you could handle any other heavy metal

in situ mining techniques are less devastating to the local environments (i believe that is the only mine type still in operation for uranium) and the ground water is checked regularly to ensure that nothing has hit it

3/1/2009 11:35:02 PM

Quote :

"MWe or MWt?"

Would MWt really apply to solar power? I'm pretty sure they're talking about generated electricity.

Quote :

"Because it works."

Obviously. 14% of the world's electricity comes from fission.

Quote :

"are you saying that the raw uraninite is hazardous?"

The ore emits radon gas, which causes lung cancer. Plenty of uranium miners here in New Mexico have died because of this.

http://www.deseretnews.com/article/1,5143,250010691,00.html

3/1/2009 11:51:33 PM

Quote :

"Would MWt really apply to solar power? I'm pretty sure they're talking about generated electricity."

If you're talking about thermal solar, which is what many large-power proposed solar projects have been (i.e., parabolic reflectors reflecting rays onto a molten salt, which then goes through heat exchanges in a traditional steam cycle - e.g., the "solar tower"), then yes. If you're talking about photovoltaic, then obviously no. The issue of capacity factor still applies in either scenario.

Quote :

"The ore emits radon gas, which causes lung cancer. Plenty of uranium miners here in New Mexico have died because of this. http://www.deseretnews.com/article/1,5143,250010691,00.html"

In fairness, this occurred nearly half a century ago - well before we knew of the potential hazards of Uranium mining. We don't simply dump mill tailings with no regard to the local environment nowadays, and haven't for some time.

And don't try and tell me arsenic is plenty healthy either. It's not like the semiconductor industry - which incidentally uses arsenic (or at least, has in the past) has a spotless healtlh and safety record either. Or that we can simply dump semiconductor materials straight into the landfill - they have their own toxic materials problems.

Incidentally, don't we rely on semiconductors to build solar cells? Oh.

[Edited on March 2, 2009 at 12:09 AM. Reason : GaAs]

3/2/2009 12:03:04 AM

Quote :

"The ore emits radon gas, which causes lung cancer"

take a deep breath

...

you just inhaled some radon, its everywhere

[Edited on March 2, 2009 at 12:14 AM. Reason : 

3/2/2009 12:10:12 AM

Not everything should be a commodity. Now that energy is a trade off with the health of the environment, it should be removed from the market place and administered by a body of expert public servants. Markets are for vibrators and TV's.

3/2/2009 6:47:20 AM

SOCIALIST!

3/2/2009 10:27:33 AM

Quote :

"but, for the record, the estimate of a 1,000 year time-table for this stuff being "safe" is unrealistic, mrfrog, and you know that. That would only be true if all of the radioactive constituents had half-lives on the order of decades. And they don't."

First time aaron and I have agreed, probably ever. Kdawg, of course, is insulting my intelligence for the bazillionth time while being simultaneously proven wrong.

Anyway, I'm not saying nuclear CAN'T BE safe. I'm saying I know there's research and some promising containment opportunities out there, but the system we use right now is NOT good enough. We have no idea what will happen to those containers, the sites they're at, or anything else. Imagine someone nukes YUCCA, for instance. There are tons of negatives to nuclear, one of which is that it is so safe in the short term but SO dangerous in the long term if not handled exactly right.

[Edited on March 2, 2009 at 10:31 AM. Reason : .]

3/2/2009 10:29:51 AM

Quote :

"We have no idea what will happen to those containers,"

Yes we do. Do you actually think the nuclear engineering community is full of short-sighted dunces? Do you think that no study has gone into the long-term characteristics of both engineered (containers) and natural (geology) barriers?

Do you really think that nobody has bothered to actually try and think about these issues?

Quote :

"Imagine someone nukes YUCCA, for instance."

Uh, well, let's see. The actual drifts where waste packages would be emplaced (and then back-filled) are 1000 feet below the surface.

http://www.ocrwm.doe.gov/ym_repository/studies/engdesign/tunneldesign.shtml

So, unless you've perfected something beyond bunker-buster missiles, nuking Yucca would produce a whole lot of nothing. At least nothing worse than what we already did at the same site given that we, again, blew up 900 atomic weapons there in above and below-ground testing.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nevada_Test_Site

Quote :

"There are tons of negatives to nuclear, one of which is that it is so safe in the short term but SO dangerous in the long term if not handled exactly right."

One of them being hysterical reactions by people who don't understand what they're talking about. Seriously, you are acting like the nuclear engineering community takes a casual disregard for long-term issues of safety; that they've never studied this. Do you really think the same people who have endeavored so hard to make sure that even a three-mile island never, ever occurs again just haven't even bothered thinking about these issues?

Really?

3/2/2009 11:33:03 AM

I don't think they've never studied it or that they are being short-sighted. I trust scientists and engineers more than I trust anyone else in the world. I know they have a decent idea of what could happen, and I'm not saying bad things WILL happen. I think you're twisting my ideas from skepticism into complete disbelief in the safety of the process. I think that the chances are there that something could happen, and of all energy sources, nuclear is the most dangerous when there is any kind of flaw.

The worst that happens when burning coal or oil or whatever is fires, or oil spills. If you spill or leak toxic waste, the situation becomes MUCH worse. Sure, 99.999999% chances that nothing will go wrong are great, but that tiny fraction of a chance something could go wrong make it very frightening. We have a penchant for doing things just because we can, regardless of what the risks are, however slight they may be.

3/2/2009 11:52:22 AM

Quote :

"The worst that happens when burning coal or oil or whatever is fires, or oil spills. If you spill or leak toxic waste, the situation becomes MUCH worse. Sure, 99.999999% chances that nothing will go wrong are great, but that tiny fraction of a chance something could go wrong make it very frightening. We have a penchant for doing things just because we can, regardless of what the risks are, however slight they may be."

Look, this kind of logic breaks down if you start applying it to the real world. To paraphrase another argument:

I'm going to assume you drive regularly, or at the very least, use some mode of transportation which uses gasoline. Well, you're riding around at high speeds on top of something very flammable which can just as easily explode and kill you under the wrong conditions.

What is the probability of your gas tank up and exploding from under you? Negligibly small. Yet the consequences for you would be catastrophic. Does this prevent you from actually using gasoline engines?

At some point, you can't make risk analysis decisions based upon the magnitude of disaster alone. Besides which, industrial fires are far from the worst things that can happen with say, coal:

http://www.knoxnews.com/news/2008/Dec/31/toxic-details-released/

http://blog.wired.com/wiredscience/2008/06/the-autopsy-of.html

3/2/2009 11:57:15 AM

But there are alternatives to combustion engines that we are striving for. I don't have any choice but to drive or not drive, right now. As soon as there's a safer alternative, it should be used.

There are alternatives to nuclear. They may not be as efficient or cheap, but the safety factor makes a difference for me.

3/2/2009 12:13:11 PM

Quote :

"I don't have any choice but to drive or not drive, right now"

yes you do

you can walk, bike, take a train

you do realize that at the point where something can happen in the new designs, you are more likely to be struck by lightning, or die falling down, choke to death, shark attack, or die by meteorite than there to be a severe enough event at a plant for radiological release

even the currently operation units have a probability of 10^-5 to 10^-4 event/reactor-years

and event isnt even synonymous with radiological release

[Edited on March 2, 2009 at 12:44 PM. Reason : 

3/2/2009 12:37:17 PM

0 Americans have been killed in nuclear power related incidents.

At least 1 has been killed by wind power:
http://blog.oregonlive.com/breakingnews/2007/08/wasco_wind_turbine_collapse_ki.html

Being afraid of the worst case scenario because of how bad it is, even in the face of overwhelming odds to the contrary is called a lack of perspective. Like being afraid of flying because of plane crashes when you are way more likely to die in a car wreck on the way to the airport.

I'd also argue that all the paranoia over nuclear power has created layer upon layer of regulation and failsafes and failsafes for those failsafes to make the "worst case scenario" even less likely.

Finally back on topic, shutting down the Yucca Mountain plan without an alternative plan means that the waste in southwestern Wake county sits on site for how long? Forever?

3/2/2009 1:56:21 PM

Quote :

"lol, did someone really post a pic of 3 Mile Island as an argument against nuclear energy? Talk about the most hyped up incident ever."

Yes I posted a photo of the biggest nuclear disaster in US history. I saw a show about it and if they had left everything alone the plant would have fixed itself. The government has not aproved the building of a new nuclear plant since the almost melt down at 3 mile island. I guess there are still some people who are affraid of it even though they shouldn't be.

3/2/2009 2:45:19 PM

Quote :

"That said, how is nuclear subsidy being calculated? I suspect most of that is salaries for regulators and inspectors, as that's how such figures tend to be calculated."

The NRC is an industry fee based agency.

What was that about responsibility and internalizing costs again?

Quote :

"The ore emits radon gas, which causes lung cancer. Plenty of uranium miners here in New Mexico have died because of this. http://www.deseretnews.com/article/1,5143,250010691,00.html"

How about you follow that link and then answer to how it relates to civilian nuclear power?

Quote :

"Historians call it the "uranium frenzy," a time when the Cold War was hot and nothing — including the sacrifice of thousands of human lives — was too great a price to pay to stockpile the powder needed to trigger the nation's nuclear arsenal."

So, we accepted human sacrifice in Uranium mining when we were (presumably) trying to save the world from destruction. How does this form an argument against mining under the proper scrutiny now?

The anti-nukes have brought this up persistently - that Navajos were killed due to Uranium mining. It is irrelevant to the current prospect of nuclear power. That Uranium was not mined for the purpose of producing power, and was not subject to environmental standards or health standards that any commercial operation even at the time would have been subject to, much less now.

Do you need me to make a chart of differences? Really, the only thing this shares in common with modern civilian mining operations is that it mined the same element.

[Edited on March 2, 2009 at 4:00 PM. Reason : ]

3/2/2009 4:00:02 PM

^ If it's a dead issue, how come the Navajo, Hopi, and Havasupai put a uranium-mining moratorium in effect in 2005? And yes, some of the uranium mined on those lands did go to produce power, though I'll agree the worst conditions seem to have happened during the rush to provide material for atomic weapons.

3/2/2009 4:32:35 PM

Let's be clear about this.

Was there ever any Uranium ever mined from there that was NOT intended for nuclear weapons when it was mined?

And furthermore, regarding the Uranium from those mines that was was burned in power producing reactors, did it's destination change for the purpose of fueling American civilian reactors, or did they burn it in American civilian reactors in order to reduce the proliferation threat of nuclear material that was being diverted away from weapons as the United States reduced it's stockpile? i.e., the Megatons to Megawatts program.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Megatons_to_Megawatts_Program

Regardless of how you view the nuclear industry, the diversion of former weapons material into commercial reactors can not be seen as a negative point. The stuff needed to be taken care of one way or the other. So long as mankind still operates large nuclear reactors for power production, it doesn't make sense not to burn it (and make it non-weapons usable) in such a manner.

3/3/2009 12:10:10 AM

Quote :

"Was there ever any Uranium ever mined from there that was NOT intended for nuclear weapons when it was mined?"

Yes, from 1972-1986, nuclear power companies got in on the act.

Quote :

"After 1971, utilities also bought uranium for nuclear power plants."

http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-navajo24oct24,0,4730461.story

Moreover, various corporations and politicians want to reopen uranium mining on Amerindian land to facilitate rejuvenation of the nuclear power industry. You can't blame the injured parties for being suspicious. Maybe things would be different now. Maybe not.

Let me be clear that dangerous and oppressive working conditions have existed and continue to exist in other industries. Coal mining certainly kills people. But the legacy of poisoned lungs and blighted lands should be considered with listening to claims from fission advocates. Though perhaps no American has died from an accident at nuclear plant, radioactive materials aren't harmless. Far from it.

3/3/2009 9:50:19 AM

^ your quote

Quote :

"The nation's largest tribal homeland, encompassing parts of Arizona, Utah and New Mexico, contains about 1,000 abandoned uranium mines and four old processing mills. From 1944 to 1986, 3.9 million tons of uranium ore were blasted from Navajo soil, nearly all of it for nuclear bombs. After 1971, utilities also bought uranium for nuclear power plants."

Nonetheless interesting, but it doesn't follow from this that mining for the nuclear industry created dangerous and oppressive working conditions.

We know from the available information that egregious working conditions existed for the mining of Uranium for the US weapons program. And we have a hint from this article that the same, or similar mines were operated to sell to nuclear power companies. But the reality is that the article only says that Uranium marked for commercial uses came from the same land. Could have been completely different mines, different companies, and most likely different practices.

The preceding article from that source:

http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-navajo19nov19,0,1645689.story

Quote :

"Private companies operated the mines, but the U.S. government was the sole customer. The boom lasted through the early '60s. As the Cold War threat gradually diminished over the next two decades, more than 1,000 mines and four processing mills on tribal land shut down."

wut?

I'm reading two strangely different statements about this from the same source. The only explanation is that the subject matter is different. The 'boom' here clearly refers specifically weapons-use mining (as it lasted through the early 60s). But if we're talking about a potential moratorium on Uranium mining, then commercial operations that happened in decades later would indeed be of relevance - even if those didn't employ Navajos in dangerous working conditions and pollute drinking water.

--
If the horrors of oppressive Uranium mining applied to industry-fueled demand, then that would be one thing. But this is mutually exclusive with the statement other people have made in this thread that nuclear power hasn't killed anyone here (I would actually already doubt this in terms of the industry safety record, but that's another matter - as a side note wind power has already killed 40+ people in the USA). If it is the case that those conditions applied to industry mining, then several claims would need to be retracted. However, I find it doubtful that this is the case.

I don't see strong evidence or any references to say that mining for the nuclear power industry subjected anyone in this nation to harsh conditions. It is not just a matter of saying that all mining continues to subject humans to dangerous conditions. I don't find this acceptable for power production period, and to the extent of my learning, it does not apply to current discussion of nuclear power. I would be all ears if you have something to present that contradicts this. The human impact of power production is of great concern to me, and my decision to support nuclear power is based off much research from which i've concluded that nuclear power is practically free in terms of that human cost compared to all other power sources.

fyi, there is public discussion about the potential of Uranium mining in Virginia going on right now. Similar to how the Navajo have lobbied to ban uranium mining on their land, Virginia has previously enacted a ban on Uranium mining. That's not anything special - people don't like the sound of "Uranium", and lots of places have bans on mining and nuclear plants. You're right that the Navajo have reason to be skeptical, but it is my wish that they (and the community in Virginia) make a decision based on the evidence, and not a preconceived notion.

[Edited on March 3, 2009 at 11:24 AM. Reason : ]

3/3/2009 11:21:42 AM

^ Do you have any specific information about conditions in uranium mines used primarily for power? Given the conditions in mines for weapons material, and the close cooperation between industry and government, I think burden of proof goes in that direction. Uranium is uranium. Why assume conditions would be dramatically better depending on the intended purpose for the ore?

Quote :

"(I would actually already doubt this in terms of the industry safety record, but that's another matter - as a side note wind power has already killed 40+ people in the USA)"

I strongly doubt it, considering that each nuclear plant was a massive construction project. If nobody has died in the process, they're doing something amazingly right. Hundreds of construction workers die each year.

Finally, just to prove I'm not solely a hater:

http://www.technologyreview.com/energy/22114/

3/3/2009 1:43:19 PM

Quote :

"I strongly doubt it, considering that each nuclear plant was a massive construction project. If nobody has died in the process, they're doing something amazingly right. Hundreds of construction workers die each year."

Here you go:

http://www.thenewamerican.com/tech-mainmenu-30/energy/788

Quote :

"How about wind power? How does it fare compared to the perfect record of the American nuclear power industry? Believe it or not, there is an organization, the Caithness Windfarm Information Forum, that keeps data on wind power-elated accidents and/or design problems. Caithness is based in Great Britain, where homeowners have already grown tired of the noise and other wind turbine generated problems. Their "Summary of Wind Turbine Accident Data to 31 December 2008" reports 41 worker fatalities. Most, not unexpectedly, were from falling as they are typically working on turbines some thirty stories above the ground. In addition, Caithness attributed the deaths of 16 members of the public to wind-turbine accidents."

Note that these are not disputable deaths. Those are documented instances of worker and public deaths. In the entire history of the industry there were 52 fatal accidents resulting in 57 deaths, 41 were workers, and 16 were public fatalities. These are also ongoing - in 2008 there were 6 fatal accidents. I don't know how many deaths those accidents caused, but 6 or more people died from wind power in the year of 2008. More will die in 2009.

To the extent of my understanding, the last death in the nuclear industry was a steam explosion in the Japanese Mihama nuclear plant on August 9th, 2004 at 3:28pm, causing four deaths, two severe injuries and five injuries.

44 plants are currently under construction, several new plants come online each year, mining to fuel the plants continue and the last person to die from any of these activities happened in 2004. I welcome you to try to prove me wrong. To help you out, this site gives the construction starts and finishes around the world:

http://www.iaea.org/programmes/a2/

Let me forewarn that when someone dies in the nuclear industry it is a BIG deal, see for yourself by searching for news coverage of the Mihama accident. Before that was the Tokai-mura accident. Both of these fatal events were plastered all over the world press. Apparently the dozens of individuals who died due to wind power in between the nuclear accidents were too run-of-the-mill to cover.

Quote :

"If nobody has died in the process, they're doing something amazingly right."

Do you now see where my skepticism of the nuclear mining related deaths comes from? The safety record of the modern nuclear industry is in a word, breathtaking.

3/3/2009 3:36:34 PM

Quote :

"The safety record of the modern nuclear industry is in a word, breathtaking."

Aye. We have a quality control program paralleled by none.

3/3/2009 4:10:22 PM

The NRC website publishes the vast majority of correspondence between the NRC and its licensees (which aren't limited to nuclear power plants, by the way). This includes daily event reports. If you're interested in nuclear power, I highly recommend reading this several time a week:

http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/doc-collections/event-status/

I don't know of any other industry that offers this type of transparency.

You can search for 'fatality' and 'death':

http://www.nrc.gov/site-help/search-select.cfm?q=fatality&sa=Search&cof=FORID%3A11&cx=014311028302829740899%3Agsojhkka504
http://www.nrc.gov/site-help/search-select.cfm?q=death&sa=Search&cof=FORID%3A11&cx=014311028302829740899%3Agsojhkka504

The two searches yield about 60 hits, of which almost all of them appear to be heart attacks that happened at work (based on my sample of ~15 hits). Not suprising, given the age of the nuclear workforce. I wouldn't be suprised if there are also a handful of industrial-type accidents (falls, etc) not specifically related to nuclear work.

[Edited on March 3, 2009 at 5:53 PM. Reason : ]

3/3/2009 5:50:45 PM

Quote :

""Event description: A pterygium patient was scheduled to receive a 42.5 second treatment utilizing a 100 millicurie Srontium-90 sealed source manufactured by 3M Company, model number 6D1A. The dosimetrist programmed the manual timer for 4 minutes and 25 seconds. During the treatment, the physician questioned the treatment time and it was terminated after 2 minutes and 30 seconds. The prescribed dose was 20 Gy. The patient received 70.59 Gy. The patient and the physician were notified of the misadministration. The licensee notified the Division the same day of the event. The licensee will submit a written report within 15 days. This incident is reportable under 1200-2-5-.32 (79) (e) (4) of 'State Regulations for Protection Against Radiation.'" "

lol

3/3/2009 6:57:27 PM

^^ I doubt the people building the plants count for such statistics. And most nuclear plants were built years and years ago anyway.

Quote :

"Do you now see where my skepticism of the nuclear mining related deaths comes from?"

No. Mining is separate from plant operation. It's a famously dangerous field. Look, we know uranium miners got screwed by the government. We know miners in general die at a fairly high rate. How can you conclude from this that folks who mine uranium for power work in safety? Do think the civilian nuclear industry is magical?

Quote :

"The safety record of the modern nuclear industry is in a word, breathtaking."

For plant operators, absolutely. I've looked at the official data. If only other industries could be so safe! I guess certain advantages come from having to deal with dangerous materials.

Always, here's an example of a recent death at nuclear power plant:

http://www.startribune.com/28531309.html

So, when pro-nuclear types claim nobody dies as result of the industry, they're lying. Nobody from radiation, perhaps, but run-of-the-mill accidents continue to happen rarely. That said, wind power seems to be disturbingly accident prone. That industry needs to get its act together. (I suggest, unsurprisingly, worker revolution.)

Finally, you have questionable but worrying reports about the public health effects of the nuclear industry:

http://eyeonmiami.blogspot.com/2007/09/cancer-and-nuclear-power-mistake-in.html

[Edited on March 3, 2009 at 7:17 PM. Reason : junk science]

3/3/2009 7:01:05 PM

^^ Search for Walmart.

^

Quote :

"I doubt the people building the plants count for such statistics. And most nuclear plants were built years and years ago anyway."

Quote :

"Nobody from radiation, perhaps, but run-of-the-mill accidents continue to happen rarely."

So, the accidents happening at nuclear plants are no different than accidents happening at every other industrial facility?

Quote :

"So, when pro-nuclear types claim nobody dies as result of the industry, they're lying."

No, they're not. People die as a result of working in industrial environments--not as a result of anything specifically nuclear related. The article you posted has nothing to do with nuclear power other than the fact it happened near a nuclear site. Contact with high voltage lines can (and does) happen near any high-voltage line anywhere—fossil plants, hydro plants, geothermal plants, solar plants, wind farms, factories, biomass plants, CTs, cogens, substations, your neighborhood, or your own home.

Quote :

"junk science"

Then why even mention it?

[Edited on March 3, 2009 at 8:14 PM. Reason : ]

3/3/2009 8:05:19 PM

^ You shouldn't take my edit boxes too seriously. I'm not convinced one way or the other. Some studies link nuclear power plants with higher rates of cancer, while others don't.

3/3/2009 9:35:14 PM

lulz

if you stand next to a reactor building, you would have a tough time discerning the reactor activity from background

3/3/2009 10:48:41 PM

Interesting you say that. I would think that if you stand inside a reactor you would have trouble discerning the reactor activity from background because you are not a geiger counter.

3/4/2009 12:44:30 AM

Quote :

"Nanosolar is building a 430-megawatt plant in California and 620-megawatt one in Germany."

They are not building a 430 MW power plant. They have a fabrication plant that they claim can produce enough solar cells per year to deliver a maximum 430 MW. http://nanotechweb.org/cws/article/tech/25180 There is a pretty big difference between the two. The neat thing about nanosolar is that they print the cells, so presumably their equipment costs are less than for those companies which do vacuum deposition. However, they don't list the assumptions by which they get to 430 MW, so it's not clear how accurate their claim is. They haven't released their watts/area numbers; typically the amount of area needed is fairly high. This is not to say that they shouldn't be used, but that they are not a panacea. We need nuclear for baseload generation, with solar, wind, and hydroelectric providing the peak.

Quote :

"I would think that if you stand inside a reactor you would have trouble discerning the reactor activity from background because you are not a geiger counter."

Once your cells start dying, your body turns in to a good, if short-lived, radiation detector.

3/4/2009 1:30:17 AM

Quote :

"if you stand next to a reactor building, you would have a tough time discerning the reactor activity from background"

This data point in no way invalidates the various studies correlating nuclear power plants with higher rates of cancer. You know, I assume, how correlation works. Maybe it's not the radiation. Maybe it's some other factor entirely, perhaps only indirectly related to the plant. On the other hand, many physicians maintain that there's no safe dose of ionizing radiation.

Quote :

"We need nuclear for baseload generation, with solar, wind, and hydroelectric providing the peak."

Well, unless the most extreme anti-nuclear claims prove correct, fission seems significantly better than coal. That doesn't mean we need it. See Makhijani's plan on how to reduce carbon emissions without building more nuclear plants.

3/4/2009 9:21:39 AM

I admit it was disingenuous for me to say that 0 people have been killed by nuclear power. Plenty of people have been killed in uranium mining, construction, and industrial accidents.

My point is that people for some reason think that nuclear power plants are going to explode like a nuclear bomb and that's just stupid.

3/4/2009 9:28:56 AM

Quote :

"I admit it was disingenuous for me to say that 0 people have been killed by nuclear power. Plenty of people have been killed in uranium mining, construction, and industrial accidents."

I don't mean to slam fission by pointing this out. Sadly, folks die to bring us all sorts of products. Fishers and loggers suffer the highest fatality rates.

Quote :

"My point is that people for some reason think that nuclear power plants are going to explode like a nuclear bomb and that's just stupid."

3/4/2009 9:41:46 AM

Quote :

"No. Mining is separate from plant operation. It's a famously dangerous field. Look, we know uranium miners got screwed by the government. We know miners in general die at a fairly high rate. How can you conclude from this that folks who mine uranium for power work in safety? Do think the civilian nuclear industry is magical?"

Hogwash! How do you substantiate the claim that Uranium mining for commercial power is dangerous???? You can't! Here is a well organized anti-nuclear group that is constantly breathing down the throat of Uranium mining for the nuclear power industry:

http://www.wise-uranium.org/

They have VOLUMES of information on every little spill that Uranium mining has. They have no shortage of claims of massive deaths by using bad science to claim that cancer rates have increased. So tell me, where is their section on documented industry deaths?

...

Cricket chirp.

Quote :

"This data point in no way invalidates the various studies correlating nuclear power plants with higher rates of cancer. You know, I assume, how correlation works."

I find it unfortunate that you jumped into the bandwagon of people claiming that radiation from a nuclear plant kills a statistically significant number of people by cancer.

There is something called radiation dosimetry. It's a science and we're fairly good at it. We know the increased risk from large doses - and the risk per dose for small doses should be the same or smaller. We assume it's the same. With that assumption, calculations show that the increased incidence of cancer due to dose to industry workers and the public is tantamount to the number of people dying by industry accidents. About none.

Nuclear plants expose the public living nearby to 3 to 50 times less radiation than people living near a coal plant get (yes i have sources). Don't start telling me I can't compare to coal yet, the point is that radiation from coal plants isn't the health concern, you have plenty of chemical stuff that will give you cancer first. Doses to the public much greater than what a nuclear plant produces are considered easily acceptable in other cases.

Attacking nuclear power radioactive effluents and industry dose is the 'last stand' of anti-nuclear arguments, and it's a mute issue. No study can ever develop a credible link to cancer from these things, the link is simply too small, and even the worst-case-scenario would mean that only a handful of people in the United States have died due to cancer caused by the nuclear power industry.

A study can't detect a single increased incidence of cancer in New York City per year. That's the kind of level of dilution that we're talking about.

3/4/2009 9:45:45 AM

Quote :

"How do you substantiate the claim that Uranium mining for commercial power is dangerous????"

So, you're suggesting that uranium mining for power is magically safer than mining in general, despite the established record of uranium mining for weapons? I have trouble believing that. Until someone finds actual statistics from the industry, neither of us know.

Quote :

"I find it unfortunate that you jumped into the bandwagon of people claiming that radiation from a nuclear plant kills a statistically significant number of people by cancer."

I'm not jumping on any bandwagon. If the studies I cite bother you, take it up with the scientists involved. (Or, if you prefer, dismiss them as dirty hippies.) I haven't drawn any conclusions myself. Here are links to the recent research:

http://pgs.ca/?page_id=611

http://www.reformer.com/ci_11737653

http://www.planet2025news.net/ntext.rxml?id=5571

Quote :

"No study can ever develop a credible link to cancer from these things, the link is simply too small, and even the worst-case-scenario would mean that only a handful of people in the United States have died due to cancer caused by the nuclear power industry."

I suggest reviewing the actual studies before making such claims. If there's a correlation between nuclear power plants and cancer, that's worrying. I couldn't care less if current theory says radiation can't be the cause. Increased rate of disease is increased rate of disease. At the minimum, the problem warrants further investigation.

3/4/2009 10:17:41 AM

Quote :

"Interesting you say that. I would think that if you stand inside a reactor you would have trouble discerning the reactor activity from background because you are not a geiger counter."

lulz

nice troll attempt

3/4/2009 12:45:28 PM

I really do have a desire to be diplomatic regarding these issues. I really do. But sometimes I have trouble restraining myself.

Quote :

"I suggest reviewing the actual studies before making such claims. If there's a correlation between nuclear power plants and cancer, that's worrying. I couldn't care less if current theory says radiation can't be the cause. Increased rate of disease is increased rate of disease. At the minimum, the problem warrants further investigation."

You are a shameless fearmonger.

The nuclear power community is constantly bombarded with claims by bad science. I would like to stress that it is easy to preform bad science, epically dealing with phenomena that are on the borderline of statistical significance. The predicted cancer rates due to off-site dose from a nuclear power plant are well below statistical significance. I will say it again.

The predicted cancer rates due to off-site dose from a nuclear power plant are well below statistical significance.

How do we predict such things? It's that thing called radiation dosimetry. We have several wonderful classes available here at lovely NC State that cover this field very well. Furthermore, that off-site dose comes from something called radioactive effluents. These are gasses that are emitted from the chimney at a nuclear power plant, which have very well measured quantities and known half-lives. Then we use the wonders of science to make a conservative estimate of the dose to the public and that leads to a prediction of the extra cancers caused by the effluents. Similar studies are conducted for Tritium and other liquid products of the Chemical Volume Control System. The conservative results of these studies must conform to strict limits set by our government, else the plant ceases operation. Suffice it to say that these are the only direct physical interactions that take place between a nuclear plant and its respective community. The chemical effects of these effluents are negligible compared to the radiation effects (similar to Radon) due to the fact that that the concentrations are far from chemically significant. Thus the expectation is that no change in cancer incidence due to the presence of a nuclear plant should be observed and if one measured cancer rates in surrounding communities, even changes in risk factors due to socio-economic changes caused by the plant would be much greater. I find it unfortunate that you consider these arguments to be insufficient and propose that yet unknown interactions may be at play.

Nonetheless, I agree with you that we should go above and beyond the call of duty and "double check" our work on this matter by collecting statistics as accurately as possible and testing for increased cancer rates. It comes as no surprise to you that this has already been done and volumes of literature are available for your review and consideration. However, your representation of the body of research on the subject is slanted. To put it nicely.

Allow me to present some landmark publications for your consideration.

http://www.cancer.gov/cancertopics/factsheet/Risk/nuclear-facilities

Here, the National Cancer Institute outlines surveys for the United States around nuclear plants. A 1991 study in the Journal of the American Medical Association made these findings:

Quote :

"The numbers of cancer deaths in the study counties and in the control counties were analyzed and compared to determine the relative risk (RR) of dying of cancer for persons living near a nuclear facility. A relative risk of 1.00 means that the risk of dying of cancer was the same in the study and control counties; any number below 1.00 indicates that the overall risk was lower in the study county than in the control county; and any number greater than 1.00 indicates a higher risk in the study county. For example, an RR of 1.04 would indicate that there was a 4-percent higher risk of cancer death in the study county. Conversely, an RR of 0.93 would indicate a 7-percent lower risk in the study county. For childhood leukemia in children from birth through age 9 years, the overall RR comparing study and control counties before the startup of the nuclear facilities was 1.08; after startup the RR was 1.03. These data indicate that the risk of childhood leukemia in the study counties was slightly greater before startup of the nuclear facilities than after. The risk of dying of childhood cancers other than leukemia increased slightly from an RR of 0.94 before the plants began operation to an RR of 0.99 after the plants began operating. For leukemia at all ages, the RRs were 1.02 before startup and 0.98 after startup. For other cancer at all ages, the RRs were essentially the same: 1.00 before startup and 1.01 after startup. These results provide no evidence that the presence of nuclear facilities influenced cancer death rates in the study counties."

I hope you can appreciate some the breadth of this particular study, as the Facilities and Counties Included in the Study (table in the link) includes almost all, if not all, of the 30 some nuclear plants plus other nuclear related sites that have radioactive effluent restrictions in the United States. The United States is the largest user of nuclear power in the world and the collection of these sites represents nearly 1/4th of all the nuclear power in the world. The results are consistent with what is predicted. The cancer rate decreased in most cases, which could easily be said to be due to changing risk factors due to social changes caused by the introduction of a nuclear plant - i.e. the economy.

BTW, what should the radioactive effluents increase cancer risk by? Well, a nuclear plant gives less additional dose than a chest x-ray per year, and each x-ray adds a 1.3e-6 risk of fatal cancer. 565,000 people die in the USA every year to cancer, making the total cancer rate 565000/300 million = 0.00188, and the RR measure used above expected from the nuclear plant radioactive effluents SHOULD BE

(0.00188+1.3e-6)/0.00188 = 1.00069039

-------------
I've heard of the German studies you mentioned that are said to have found a cancer link. They didn't.

Study:
An extended study on childhood malignancies in the vicinity of German nuclear power plants
Journal:
Cancer Causes and Control

http://www.springerlink.com/content/l40t884n2rl35821/

Quote :

"Abstract Objectives: The study was performed to validate exploratory results obtained in a former study on the incidence rates of childhood malignancies in the vicinity of German nuclear power plants and to evaluate the confirmatory results of this previous study. Methods: Incidence rates near German nuclear installations were compared to rates in control regions based on the German Childhood Cancer Registry. Results: No exploratory result could be reproduced. This is also true for children with acute leukemia younger than 5 years who were living within a 5 km radius of an installation: an observed relative risk (RR) of 1.39 was not significantly increased (95 percent confidence interval CI: 0.69-2.57). Former confirmatory results could be confirmed again. A pooled analysis of both studies based on 2390 cases resulted in RR of 0.99 for all malignancies (CI: 0.91-1.07) and of 1.00 for acute leukemias (CI: 0.87-1.16) (children younger than 15 years of age living within a 15km radius). Conclusions: Results did not show significantly increased incidence rates for any subgroup with previously significant exploratory results. Therefore, it appears to be most likely that the previous results were just due to chance. Evaluating the previously confirmatory results with the combined data from the two study periods reassures that incidence rates are not increased in children younger than 15 years who are living within a 15 km radius, either for all malignancies or for acute leukemias. We conclude that at present, in Germany no further investigations of this kind are necessary."

The first part up there is a bit difficult to read, but when it says "confirmatory results" it's referring to a previous study that DID find a link.

There is no link. Credible study after study confirms this. You would have to collect data from a million years to even observe the carcinogenic effect of a nuclear plant, and even then social factors would overwhelm and make the study meaningless. Our "current theory" is right and your skepticism is built off of ignorance.

Quote :

"I couldn't care less if current theory says radiation can't be the cause."

You are an embarrassment.

3/5/2009 4:39:41 PM

Quote :

"We have several wonderful classes available here at lovely NC State that cover this field very well."

Aparently thing have gotten better since I graduated. Good lord did I hate 404 so very much.

3/5/2009 4:53:27 PM

Quote :

"You are a shameless fearmonger."

In case you haven't noticed, I didn't publish the studies in question.

Quote :

"The nuclear power community is constantly bombarded with claims by bad science."

Even if this assertion is true, you have to take each study on its own merits. That's how science works. On this question, both parties have reason to mislead, though I suspect the nuclear industry has more money on the line.

Quote :

"Thus the expectation is that no change in cancer incidence due to the presence of a nuclear plant should be observed and if one measured cancer rates in surrounding communities, even changes in risk factors due to socio-economic changes caused by the plant would be much greater."

As I mentioned initially, that's certainly possible. Correlational studies don't tell you much about causes. Many things could explain the higher rate of cancer. But giving nuclear plants a pass to begin with isn't the correct way to proceed. Using theory to dismiss data makes science useless. Reading Excess Heat has made me passionate about that.

Quote :

"However, your representation of the body of research on the subject is slanted. To put it nicely."

Now you're getting somewhere. I mention this earlier as well. Certain studies find an increased risk of cancer. Other do not. This isn't exactly unheard of. You see similar dynamics in countless fields of research.

Quote :

"I've heard of the German studies you mentioned that are said to have found a cancer link. They didn't."

Some did. To use TWW jargon, the analysis you linked is [old]. Published in 1998. A current German study did find a cancer link. Note the date. 2009. The issue has not been resolved.

http://www.planet2025news.net/printable.rxml?id=5571

Also, note the following from the article:

Quote :

"According to the current scientific knowledge, however, the radiation exposure to the population due to the operation of nuclear power plants is too low to cause the observed increase in cancer risk. Thus, the result cannot be plausibly explained with the actual discharges from the reactors. Neither can other possible risk factors in connection to childhood leukaemia account for the increased risk depending on distance."

Everyone knows what current theory predicts. Now, for something you'll enjoy. Here's a breakdown of the report on a pro-nuclear site:

http://nuclearpoweryesplease.org/blog/2009/02/05/study-says-german-nuclear-power-causes-child-cancer-or-does-it/

Needless to say, I'm a little more worried than the fission fans are. While the weight of evidence might not run in that direction, other studies have shown an association between nuclear power plants and cancer. For example:

http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlerender.fcgi?artid=1740569

http://cat.inist.fr/?aModele=afficheN&cpsidt=15038041

http://www3.interscience.wiley.com/journal/114131588/abstract

http://ije.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/content/abstract/19/3/546

http://www.bmj.com/cgi/content/abstract/331/7508/77 (barely increased risk among nuclear power plant workers)

To show you I'm not the only one who cares about the recent German study, see the following:

http://www.channel4.com/news/articles/society/health/nuclear+cancer+risk+doubled/1300847

http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg19826535.300-comment-lets-take-cancer-clusters-seriously-this-time.html

Of course, even such studies prove correct, you can still argue that fission causes far less harm than coal.

Quote :

"Fine particle pollution from US power plants cuts short the lives of over 30,000 people each year."

http://www.osti.gov/energycitations/product.biblio.jsp?osti_id=778926

3/6/2009 9:59:06 AM

Quote :

"As I mentioned initially, that's certainly possible. Correlational studies don't tell you much about causes. Many things could explain the higher rate of cancer. But giving nuclear plants a pass to begin with isn't the correct way to proceed. Using theory to dismiss data makes science useless. Reading Excess Heat has made me passionate about that."

I read a lot several years ago about such findings and I was swayed by a group of studies which showed conclusively (in their opinion) a few important correlations. First, the lower the income of an individual the greater the liklihood of cancer they face, due to any number of factors they went into but I don't remember. Second, lower income individuals tend to locate their homes onto lower priced land. Third, land located near stigma inducing land-marks such as HV power lines, prisons, power plants, dams, etc tend to be lower priced. As such, cancer and other disease clusters can usually be found near even these landmarks where there is no other scientific reason, namely there is no scientific reason why a prison should cause cancer clusters in its neighbors, but they all do. And they do it, the studies concluded, by driving down local property values and attracting cancer prone individuals. Although the effect was so small that in some studies it was undetectable.

[Edited on March 6, 2009 at 10:16 AM. Reason : .,.]

3/6/2009 10:15:36 AM

The plane takes off.

3/6/2009 10:22:18 AM

Well, it gets more interesting. 17 Republican Senators have sent a letter to Secretary Chu to specifically outline the decision process on sidelining Yucca. The letter:

http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Files.View&FileStore_id=17ce7691-d7c8-4c1b-936e-cf217c2c51c1

Quote :

"Dear Secretary Chu: Since the first National Academy of Science (NAS) study in 1957, deep geologic disposal has been viewed as the safest approach to disposal of nuclear waste. In 1983, the Nuclear Waste Policy Act (NWPA) was signed into law providing for the siting and development of a repository for our nation’s used nuclear fuel and nuclear waste culminating in the recommendation of the Yucca Mountain site. In accordance with that law, electricity consumers have contributed $30 billion for the disposal of civilian spent fuel and taxpayers have paid $3.5 billion for the disposal of the nuclear waste legacy of the Cold War. Courts have affirmed the federal government’s obligation to dispose of spent fuel. Taxpayers face up to $11 billion in liability costs if the Department of Energy begins accepting used fuel and nuclear waste in 2020 and an additional $500 million with each passing year of delay. At present, the nuclear industry has nearly 60,000 metric tons of civilian used fuel awaiting disposal in addition to 20,500 metric tons of defense waste stored at Department of Energy facilities. Since the 1950s, 55 studies have been conducted by the NAS, in addition to numerous studies conducted in our National Labs and in international scientific bodies, as to the options and alternatives to nuclear waste disposal. Additionally, the NWPA, as amended, established the Nuclear Waste Technical Review Board (NWTRB, a standing blue ribbon commission) to evaluate the scientific data and technical aspects of the Yucca Mountain Project. Over $7.7 billion has been spent researching Yucca Mountain as a potential repository site and neither the NAS, the NWTRB, nor any of our National Labs involved in conducting studies and evaluating data have concluded that there is any evidence to disqualify Yucca Mountain as a repository. As recently as August 2008, all ten National Lab directors, including you, signed a letter on the essential role of nuclear energy which advocated continuing the licensing of a geologic repository at Yucca Mountain. This scientific work resulted in a license application exceeding 8,600 pages and was successfully docketed with the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. The Commission, the independent agency with the expertise and responsibility to assess the safety of a potential repository at Yucca Mountain, will spend over four years evaluating the application. The Commission only commenced its review last September. Given this history, President Obama’s memoranda that science will guide public policy and his commitment to an unprecedented level of openness, we find it difficult to reconcile your statement that Yucca Mountain is “not an option” made after only 6 weeks in office. Please respond to the questions and provide the information requested in the attachment by June 1, 2009. We are eager to gain a better understanding of the basis for your decision and the process that was followed to arrive at that conclusion. Thank you in advance for your timely response on this matter. Sincerely, ______________________ _____________________ James M. Inhofe David Vitter ______________________ _____________________ Jim DeMint Sam Brownback ______________________ _____________________ John McCain Thad Cochran ______________________ _____________________ Richard C. Shelby Mike Crapo ______________________ _____________________ Jeff Sessions James E. Risch ______________________ _____________________ Michael B. Enzi Jim Bunning ______________________ _____________________ Christopher S. Bond Olympia J. Snowe ______________________ _____________________ John Barrasso Michael Johanns ______________________ Jon Kyl"

The questions are the interesting part:

Quote :

"Questions 1. What is the reason for your decision that Yucca Mountain is "not an option?" 2. What was the legal basis for the determination that Yucca Mountain is "not an option?" Who provided that legal advice? 3. Have you discovered, in a few short weeks, research that discredits the scientific work produced by the National Academy of Science, the Nuclear Waste Technical Review Board or any of the National Labs? 4. Are you aware of any conclusions by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission that would preclude completion of the license review? 5. Did you consult with the Secretary of the Navy regarding possible disruption to spent nuclear fuel defueling operations and storage plans? If so, what was the response? 6. Your decision may cause delays in the clean-up of DOE former weapons complex sites. Did you consult with the relevant governors regarding DOE's potential non-compliance with its commitments under state agreements? 7. What significant findings do you anticipate a new blue ribbon panel to unearth that have not been previously considered? Please provide the following information: • Record of Decision in support of your conclusion that Yucca Mountain is "not an option"; • A detailed list of the scientists who briefed you on the technical and scientific aspects of Yucca Mountain which lead to your conclusion that it is no longer an option, including their scientific and technical qualifications along with any materials they used to brief you; • A list of all those who provided legal counsel to support your decision including the dates, locations and attendees for these briefings; and • A description of the public involvement process conducted in support of your decision."

5/1/2009 7:05:47 PM

Wow.

5/1/2009 9:34:15 PM

I can't wait to see the response:

"Harry Reid told me to scrap it, man... Cut me some slack!"

5/2/2009 3:45:18 AM

Gee, that's one way to take him to task. Classy way to do it as well.

I sure as hell hope they come up with something to do with the waste, because just leaving it all over the place is not a solution.

5/2/2009 5:47:38 PM

the house needs to do that as well

5/2/2009 6:44:27 PM

This is the type of things the Republicans need to do be doing...

5/2/2009 6:49:52 PM