Home | About | Donate

As 1.5 Million Flee Hurricane Florence, Worries Grow Over Half Dozen Nuclear Power Plants in Storm's Path


#42

Life has evolved with background radiation. It doesn’t cause a lot of cancer. The radioactive nucleotides created in a reactor never occurred in nature. You will not find Iodine 131 or Cesium 137 or Strontium 90 in nature only in the radioactivity produced by reactors. Those molecules mimic the natural minerals and end up in the thyroid, muscle and bone. When they decay they are right next to the DNA or part of the DNA. That is not the equivalent to back ground radiation or an X-ray which comes from outside the body. That is why in the ten weeks after the Fukushima radiation reached the West coast infant mortality rates went up 35% according to CDC data. General radiation data is misleading. Specific nucleotides need to be monitored and no level is harmless.
The fallout from atmospheric testing that stopped 50 years ago is still blowing around Western deserts. The depleted uranium used in the Gulf War is still blowing all over Kuwait and causing birth defects. Try not to be so cavalier about the dangers of this stuff. Because of Fukushima I moved to Ecuador so I could have happy thoughts when I look at a child or pregnant woman. 99% of the reactors and 100% of the nuclear weapons are in the Northern hemisphere and the air and water masses don’t mix much.


#43

The resident troglodyte and the ol Swanee

Knew you shills would show your backsides for this one

“Statistically We Are Prepared to Withstand all the Possibilities Chaos will Present”

We base these conclusions upon our excellent track record thus far.

You Guys…Really…And Trump is the Smartest President Ever

And Hubris Kills


#44

be safe Dan Harris


#45

Thank You :pray:


#46

Best wishes.


#47

Nuclear power is a perfect example of something that mankind should have never gotten its greedy, Capitalist hands on.

Now we are going to pay the price - and boy, is it ever going to be steep!


#48

Hey, aren’t you supposed to evacuate?


#49

I hope those reactors are at least being shutdown. I wonder if the waste they have around is “safe” from flooding and hurricane winds.


#50

The fallout is also being released today when we burn the wood in New England that trapped the fallout years ago. It is ironic that a renewable resource such as wood releases radioactivity from 1950’s above ground nuclear tests.


#51

Why not wind and solar? Shouldn’t those be what we focus on making more efficient instead of something with waste for 100k years?


#52

There have NOT been “many such hurricanes that have hit the US since nuclear plants were built.” There have been very few as big as this one, and those that were didn’t hit nuclear plants.


#53

Radiation damage (dose) depends on type, energy, and activity. There is no qualitative difference in radiation from natural vs. man-made radionuclides. All alpha radiation behaves the same way, as does all beta radiation, as does all gamma radiation.

“You will not find Iodine 131 or Cesium 137 or Strontium 90 in nature only in the radioactivity produced by reactors.”

You will find natural isotopes which emit the same kind of radiation, sometimes at higher energy levels.

“Those molecules mimic the natural minerals and end up in the thyroid, muscle and bone.”

Natural radionuclides get absorbed and emit radiation in like manner.

“When they decay they are right next to the DNA or part of the DNA. That is not the equivalent to back ground radiation or an X-ray which comes from outside the body.”

Background radiation includes internal sources of radiation.

“That is why in the ten weeks after the Fukushima radiation reached the West coast infant mortality rates went up 35% according to CDC data.”

Fake news. This is like the agenda-driven, data-mining, cherry-picking that showed the warming of the planet had stopped.

https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/observations/are-babies-dying-in-the-pacific-northwest-due-to-fukushima-a-look-at-the-numbers/

“Specific nucleotides need to be monitored and no level is harmless.”

All risk is relative and needs to be put into context. The natural radiation in seawater and seafood absolutely dwarfs the risk from Fukushima radiation along the West Coast.

“The fallout from atmospheric testing that stopped 50 years ago is still blowing around Western deserts.”

And it’s in all the oceans and in all our food. Has been for decades, and used to be at much higher levels. Environmental tritium levels used to be ten times what they are now, and yet, we didn’t detect any harmful effects from it even at its peak.

“The depleted uranium used in the Gulf War is still blowing all over Kuwait and causing birth defects.”

I think it would have been a much better use of that DU to drop it into fast reactors as fuel.

“Try not to be so cavalier about the dangers of this stuff.”

Try not to be so uncritically accepting of bogus claims from the professional fear-mongers.

“Because of Fukushima I moved to Ecuador so I could have happy thoughts when I look at a child or pregnant woman.”

You moved to Ecuador from where? Northern Japan?


#54

Not “can”. WILL.


#55

They’ll usually shut down the reactors a day in advance of landfall in areas where grid damage is expected to be extensive. And they’ll usually decide which reactors to shut down no later than a day earlier.

“I wonder if the waste they have around is “safe” from flooding and hurricane winds.”

Spent fuel is plenty waterproof. It spends years submerged in water–some of it even under high pressure at high temperatures. The heavy concrete outdoor casks are rated for aircraft impacts. Wind blown debris should pose no problem.

“Why not wind and solar?”

We should do wind and solar. Especially now while they are a small enough part of the grid mix that their intermittency isn’t a major problem.

“Shouldn’t those be what we focus on making more efficient instead of something with waste for 100k years?”

Today’s spent fuel is only “waste” with respect to today’s reactors. Drop it into a fast reactor and it becomes fuel. And when it comes to our best clean energy options, there’s no reason it has to be one instead of another. We can and should develop all of them. That gives us the most diverse portfolio of clean options, and diversity is key to covering all the niches currently occupied by fossil fuels.


#56

That is a very optimistic view. We have created enough explosives and nuclear weapons on this planet to pulverize every inch of it, and once we are gone there is no telling how much of that will go off.
More over the sun wont burn forever.


#57

“First the earthquake caused the cooling to fail and resulted in a meltdown”
How did the earthquake cause the cooling systems to fall, when they were powered by redundant and independent diesel generators and heat exchangers?

Also I find it strange that you claim the earthquake caused the cooling systems to fail as that would suggest that the TEPCO operators admitted that between 14:16 and 14:46 that the reactors were experiencing meltdowns - this does not appear in any of their reports or IAEA reports.

“Then the Tsunami took out the secondary power which really made no difference to the meltdown because it had already happened.”
How did the meltdown occur with operational secondary power systems within 30 minutes?


#58

“Seriously, as an engineer I have always been appalled at the hubris of the engineers who claim that nuclear power is safe. Even without the very real concern for operational safety, consider the task of guarding nuclear waste for the next 100,000 years, more than ten times the span of current human history.”

I highly doubt you are an engineer or at least one that has spent time actually researching nuclear energy, because your assessment of nuclear energy does not make sense in the context of radiological substances and their relative risk compared to low radioactivity.

It is quite odd that as a proclaimed engineer you are more concerned about nuclear waste that last 100,000 years as compared with nuclear waste that lasts 100 years. Radioactive isotopes that last 100,000 years emit very very low doses of radiation per second as compared with isotopes that last 100 years. In fact if you are only looking at decay rate than isotopes that 100,000 years are scientifically safer than those that last 100 years because of their relative radiation doses.

Furthermore, why on earth are you concerned about isotopes that last for 100,000 years? There are literally ZERO isotopes that last within 1,000 years of this timeframe. The closest isotopes to 100,000 years of total decay are:

  • Am-243 @ 73,700 years
  • Cu-245 @ 85,000 years
  • Cu-250 @ 90,000 years
  • Nb-94 @ 203,000 years

I know you are most likely trying to reference Pu-239, but the total decay rate for this isotope is 244,000 years, in which case your time estimate is off by nearly 150,000 years. Additionally Pu-239 is a fissile fuel that can and is actively used as nuclear fuel in which it will undergo fission. As an engineer, why on earth are you suggesting that it would be more practical to wait 244,000 years for Pu-239 to decay instead of using this isotope in nuclear fission for electricity generation?


#59

Today’s spent fuel is not even waste in today’s reactors. Plutonium 239 is transmuted from Uranium 238 in conventional nuclear reactors and this “waste product” is still responsible for about 20% of the energy production of a conventional reactor. The problem as you likely know is that Pu-239 has a very high absorption rate in thermal spectrum, which is why the probability of fission for this “waste” in conventional reactors is so low and as a result we are left with about 1% Pu-239 “waste” in our reactors.


#60

Like I said it won’t be anything worse than the cataclysmic asteroid impacts, asteroids the side of states, that the planet has been bombarded with in the past. And yes I know the sun won’t burn forever too, it will eventually expand and consume the earth. But at that point we are essentially just talking about the natural entropy of the universe.


#61

“Life has evolved with background radiation. It doesn’t cause a lot of cancer”
And yet radon 222 is responsible for more cases of lung cancer than any isotope emitted from nuclear reactor in history…
https://www.cancer.org/cancer/cancer-causes/radiation-exposure/radon.html

“That is why in the ten weeks after the Fukushima radiation reached the West coast infant mortality rates went up 35% according to CDC data.”
Please provide your source?

“Specific nucleotides need to be monitored and no level is harmless.”
If no level of radiation is harmless, why aren’t our cancer treatments accelerating cancer growth and killing more people?


http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/1533034615578011

"