h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

have you ever heard of chenobyl? one of the first places to get nuclear power, as you should know the waste leaked. Thirty people died in the explosion, but most deaths from the accident were attributed to fallout. The 2005 report prepared by the Chernobyl Forum, said the lexplosion and leak attributed to 56 direct deaths (47 accident workers, and nine children with thyroid cancer), and estimated that there may be 4,000 extra deaths due to cancer.


HOW can we justify having nuclear power if the danger is so high. There are other forms of saving the planet. walking , buying local produce , using organic... why risk thousands of lives because we are too stubborn to change our ways .. tell me how you personally can say nuclear power that leaves radiocative waste is "green". i cant . We dont officially know what the radioactive waste can do with full potential kills thousands and create deformed babies. THat is why its not green.

"have you ever heard of chenobyl? one of the first places to get nuclear power, as you should know the waste leaked. Thirty people died in the explosion, but most deaths from the accident were attributed to fallout. The 2005 report prepared by the Chernobyl Forum, said the lexplosion and leak attributed to 56 direct deaths (47 accident workers, and nine children with thyroid cancer), and estimated that there may be 4,000 extra deaths due to cancer."

Out of all the nuclear power plants in the world only one has actually gone into meltdown and only because of negligence and bad maintenance (ie not inevitability). Even when it did the human cost is negligible compared to what the human cost of increased global warming is projected to be.

"HOW can we justify having nuclear power if the danger is so high. There are other forms of saving the planet. walking , buying local produce , using organic..."

Walking isn't going to have any effect on carbon output from power generation, nor is buying local produce. Using organic doesn't actually do anything other than "feel" more natural, it's a silly fad and nothing more. Even its supposed health benefits come to nothing according to a recent BBC documentary; all the proponents of organic seem to be basing their use on unprovable "what if" scenarios and Daily Mail-ish "I don't like to think of putting chemicals in my body" pseudoscience. To be frank, organic shouldn't even be listed along other, provable, actual-green options.

>> have you ever heard of chenobyl? one of the first places to get nuclear power, as you should know the waste leaked. <<

A2922103

The core exploded; please don't confuse this leakage of 'nuclear waste'. As Zagreb says, it was a result of mismanagement, incorrect operation, and most importantly a reactor design and fuel type that is no longer used. It was a worst-case scenario, has happened only once, and there are all sorts of reasons why the same type of accident cannot happen again.

>> HOW can we justify having nuclear power if the danger is so high. <<

The danger is relative. The number of deaths attributed to the vast majority of nuclear power stations that *don't* explode is zero. Sadly the same cannot be said of fossil-fuel plants.

Good high quality debate. I’ve been a nuclear fan for many years having seen the comparative safety standards within the nuclear industry compared to my own field of engineering i.e. marine and offshore. What I am convinced of is that civilian nuclear power generation suffers from the anti nuclear weapons campaigns of the sixties and the sheer awe that the Japanese nuclear bombs caused in an uninformed public. People still find it difficult to compartmentalise the two.

On the waste front we have the evidence before us that technology will eventually find an acceptable solution. I remember the river Mersey when it was a convenient means of disposal for the Cheshire chemicals industry. In fact as a youngster I swam in it and ate fish fished from it. I’m still here, just. Who remembers the Aberfan disaster? How have we survived the disposal of all those lead acid batteries and raised dioxin levels from incinerators with a population who’s biggest problem is longevity.

Where I live now I can still see evidence of lead and zinc mining that took place in the 19th century, some of it within spitting distance of a primary school. Locals who get enjoyment from gunning trail bikes over pristine countryside use the spoil heaps as scramble tracks so maybe there is an element of natural selection going on.

I have lived within range of the Sellarfield outfall and Windscale fallout for many years but I don’t glow in the dark or have two heads. Medical research has not proven any increased risk of cancer from living near such facilities.

I don’t advocate a cavalier approach to nuclear waste but I do have confidence that science and engineering will solve the problem.

As to renewable sources we have a patented scheme to generate commercial quantities of electrical power from the rise and fall of the tide. You wouldn’t believe how difficult it is to attract development funding.

>>radioactive waste needs to be taken in perspective. At least it's in small quantities, highly localised and (hopefully) well contained.<< Dave

"Hopefully"... oh that's alright then

I read an article in Resurgence magazine the other day. A photo accompanied the article, which showed old rusty looking drums of radioactive waste dumped haphazardly in a hole somewhere in Germany.

We know that human societies often already place greed and expediency over safety and environmental protection. Why would we expect ourselves to suddenly ensure that all byproducts of nuclear power would be stored safely and well for the foreseeable future?

I agree WA, good debate.

*

>>"Can't we stick the waste somewhere in space? It can't be that difficult to sort out,surely?"

Did you never watch Space 1999
<<

Or that episode of Futurama where a huge ball of rubbish that had been sent into space years before returns from its very long orbit and threatens to obliterate the Earth

>Resurgence magazine<

With a name like that, are you sure it wasn't just being a little emotive....

> old rusty looking drums of radioactive waste dumped haphazardly in a hole somewhere in Germany.<

I'm not laughing at *you* Kea - really. It's just the image it conjures up in my mind.....

Resurgence is a deep ecology publication. That alone will cause some people to bolt the doors on their closed minds and make a run for the bunkers , but for what it's worth, Resurgence would be at the intelligent end of the hippy/greeny spectrum*. The article I referred to was about Helen Caldicott's book on nuclear power. I guess there are still people around who consider her and Physicians for Social Responsibility to be cranks *shrug*. If you don't like Resurgence there are plenty of other resources online about Caldicott's stance.

*for instance Resurgence publishes work by James Lovelock, who was being held in relative esteem earlier in this thread for his pro-nuclear energy stance.


>>
>Resurgence magazine<

With a name like that, are you sure it wasn't just being a little emotive....<<

Not sure about that Effers. But I doubt that you would see that photo in a pro-nuclear power publication or anything from the nuclear industry itself. So if magazines like Resurgence don't publish them, how would you see them and know that that was true?

I'm not being smart here. I was very happy to see that photo after being in this thread. It gobsmacks me that people can treat the waste issue as a side one because they believe we will take care of it well. There seems to be a reasonably high acceptance of that as if it were fact. I don't think there is anything to support it as fact. It is, as Dave said, more akin to hope (I'd call it wishful thinking).

Images are emotive, but that doesn't render them always invalid or useless. The context is important which is why I mentioned the context that that photo appeared in.

Nuclear waste pictures:


http://www.snakeriveralliance.org/Portals/2/images/1969dumping.JPG

http://stephenyears.com/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2007/04/nukewaste.jpg

http://farm2.static.flickr.com/1114/998673813_e34fe36360.jpg


Haven't checked the contexts though.


>>
These are examples of the so-called 'orphaned sources'. Some of these materials were left behind by the Soviet army after the collapse of the Soviet Union, some found their way to Georgia via illegal trading. In Caucasus places where nuclear waste is stored have not always been well regulated. Large amounts of waste have been stolen by soldiers and citizens, hoping to make money. During the '94-'96 Chechen war for example almost half of the material from one radioactive waste storage site was stolen. Guards who normally maintained security at the site fled because of the danger of violent attacks.
<<

http://www.falkor.org/news/Falkor/orphaned-sources.htm

Hmmm... Not so sure about the accuracy of the last article...

Can anyone else out there figure out how strontium could be used as a power source in a radio communications tower?


On a related note, a point that is widely ignored is to answer the question "What is Nuclear Waste?"

In fact, 95% of the stuff is actually just normal household waste that has been used in an area where it _might_ end up in contact with radioactive material - the vast majority of the stuff is at no higher than background levels of radiation.

On the other hand - that old alarm clock that sat next to your bed years ago and had hands and numbers that glowed in the dark...

If it had been put together in a modern nuclear facility it would be classified as intermediate to high level nuclear waste when it came time for it to be thrown away.

Those smoke detectors attached to your ceiling?
Same thing - most of them contain radioactive materials.

Most people tend to hear the words "Nuclear Waste" and instantly panic... whereas your house, right now, almost certainly contains objects which are potentially far more hazardous to your health than having a 45 gallon oil drum full of low-level nuclear waste sat in your living room.

Yes, we need some perspective again . If those drums really contained 'radioactive waste' it could've been dressing gowns from hospital cancer wards, old smoke alarms or contaminated milk from Ukrainian cows. There's no visible markings so they could've been empty for all we know. There's a world of difference between low level waste and spent fuel. (And thanks for the picture of Homer Simpson - just making sure we're checking the links?).

When I said 'hopefully', I meant hopefully the planned storage facilities will last for requisite length of time - however Kea has a point that the former Soviet Union has occasionally been a bit lax when it comes to accounting for a lot of this stuff. If it's any consolation, I doubt much of the really dangerous stuff has been dumped as it's quite useful for making into bombs.

There has to be some trust involved. I can go to B&Q and buy paintstrippers and pesticides that are far more environmentally hazardous, and there is very little to stop me simply dumping the leftovers in rivers. I could sterilise large areas of land with table salt. Think of the damage crude oil does when it gets spilt, and it takes *a lot* of oil to run a power station. If we're going to object to substances that could be hazardous when misused, why just pick on radioactive ones?

>> Can anyone else out there figure out how strontium could be used as a power source in a radio communications tower? <<

Possibly a radioisotope thermoelectric generator (RTG). It uses the heat from radioactive decay to generate electricity. Quite useful in remote places where solar power isn't an option and batteries cannot be recharged - they use them on deep space probes a lot.

Does anyone have any technical information (and/or links) on the physical process that causes the walls of the reactor to become radioactive?

off topic but related... http://environment.newscientist.com/channel/earth/mg19826602.800-have-we-underestimated-total-oil-reserves.html?feedId=online-news_rss20

Arnie see
http://www.world-nuclear.org/education/ral.htm

Thanks HappyDude, where do I send my $1?

That site is exhaustive, so it will take awhile to actually find the relevant bit about induced radioactivity in the plant walls, materials, etc.

Nuclear is very green.

The dangers of nuclear power are more to do with poor control of the process and the redundancy of systems not coping.

The level of sophistication we have now in computer control is leagues ahead of what was available when nuclear power stations were built and designed in the past.

Unfortunately, none of this is ever made clear as it's a bit technical for journos, the media, politicians and people who would prefer us to be living in caves.

From the site provided by HappyDude - this sub page is about decommissioning:

http://www.world-nuclear.org/info/inf19.html

"Most parts of a nuclear power plant do not become radioactive"

For many - most - of the sites of the decommissioned nuclear plants, most of the land is safe for unrestricted use after decommissioning.

"In USA, utilities are collecting 0.1 to 0.2 cents/kWh to fund decommissioning... As of 2001, $23.7 billion of the total estimated cost of decommissioning all US nuclear power plants had been collected, leaving a liability of about $11.6 billion to be covered over the operating lives of 104 reactors (on basis of average $320 million per unit)."

So basically, in the US if we paid 0.3 cents/kWh we could completely cover the costs of decommissioning. That sounds affordable.

That's interesting, Arnie.

You say it's the Utilities that are collecting - are they taxed on it?

Don't tell our gov.

My reading of it was that the Govt was forcing the utilities to collect it and set it aside for cleanup. But I don't have a specific section or paragraph I can point to about that.

Looks like a good idea. It's built-in to the product price so it'll not be noticed after a while, and the more produced...

I like it.