Hi I find the article at the following link very disturbing but I do not have the ability to critique it. I surely would appreciate some assessments from you science types.
I'd have to disagree that there is nothing to worry about...the impact of this nuclear accident is going to be long-term, and I wonder how long it will be until the exclusion zone becomes habitable again.
You are of course correct.
We will be told it is safe but they are liars.
Japans horror will reach everywhere but to suggest such one will be called alarmist...we shall see...we musr never fall for the NP solution because accidents happen irrespective of wonderful safty engineering. ..
Yeah, and nuclear accidents have the potential to make places uninhabitable, totally toxic to life, over a wide area, for a long, long time...
That's why there's a combined 1-2 million people now living in both Hiroshima and Nagasaki. That's also why in the Gabon in Africa there is a natural nuclear reactor that has been leaching radioactive isotopes out into the surrounding countryside for the best part of 2.5 billion years and still is. That same reactor melted down about a billion years ago. That same nuclear reactor is loaded with all sorts of life forms, especially various species of bacteria.
People need to get a little perspective about nuclear materials and the harm they can cause. Most of the nuclear isotopes that will leak from these reactors are short lived...yes, they will cause harm if ingested or they're come into contact for any period of time in exposed situations. So long as the containment vessels aren't breached and the plutonium in the core of the reactors isn't leaking out, nature will do the rest to clean the materials out of the ecosystem. Many of these isotopes are of elements which are highly reactive....iodine, cesium etc, with relatively short half-lives but that chelate readily with many of the substances found in ground and seawaters....chlorine and sodium salts, clay particles etc. In short, they're taken out of the system rather quickly. It's only substances such as Strontium 90, Plutonium and any isotope that gives of gamma rays on decay which are inherently dangerous, especially if they have long half-lives. However, the main problem with Plutonium isn't the immediate radioactivity, it's the fact that it is inherently a very toxic substance....chemically. It doesn't take much exposure to do a lot of damage and that's on top of its radioactive dangers.
"Fukushima-I (Daiichi) has six boiling water reactors (BWR), ranging from 460 MW to 1100 MW, started up between 1970 and 1979. Fukushima-II (Daini) has four 1100 MW BWRs, commissioned between 1981 and 1986. Eleven nuclear reactors were in operation and three in planned outage in the coastal areas of Japan...when the tsunami struck (my words)..... All units had emergency shutdowns. In the follow-up, seven reactors declared a nuclear emergency, in particular because of lack of power supply and deficient cooling systems.
So, I'm not sure if comparing the environmental impact of a 100kW reactor to at least 5 1100MW and 5 at least 460MW reactors has any real validity here.
As far as the Hiroshima and Nagasaki situations, I reckon there would be a huge difference in the effects of an atmospheric explosion compared as opposed to a partial meltdown. Also, the amounts of fissile material would be far greater in the case of 10 reactors plus 40 years of waste.
As far as getting perspective about nuclear materials and the harm they can cause, here's some perspective from someone who has experienced the harm they can do first-hand....
Hi Carl it is good to have your assurances as to just how safe NP really is. ..I wonder how some folk who have sufferred from the minimal dangers of a meltdown or explosion. I think perspective is the word to focus upon. How many Coal Power Stations blow up leaving absolute devestation.
Am I unreasonable to be worried that we could be affected in the long term.
We have no idea what really went into the air andthe water so is there no reason for concern.
Alex
Just for the record, if the article is correct there were multiple total meltdowns as well as melt throughs.
As well the west coast of America had a 34% spike in infant mortality at the same time as the Japanese problem was unfolding.
As I understand the situation with NP if absolutely nothing ever goes wrong there is still the problem of disposing of not only the spent fuel but also the spent fuel containers? When something does go wrong (and it is as inevitable as air-planes crashing) then the problems all become deadly.
However, if you think coal is safer...think again. It is also radioactive, or can be.
Coal's radioactivity is measured as 830 Bq/kg. Uranium's radioactivity is measured as 12,356 Bq/g. To give us the same scale of measurement we need to multiply the Uranium figure by 1000. Gives us:
actually, I got that wrong. I was only looking at the figures for U-234. The total activity for naturally occurring Uranium is 25, 280 Bq/g. So, the comparison should be:
And this is only naturally occurring uranium. Because the reactors at Fukushima are light water reactors, this natural uranium does not have enough fissile material to begin the reaction, and so uranium needs to be enriched. The amount of U-235 is increased to ~3.5%, or alternatively the uranium is combined with plutonium, to make mixed oxide (MOX) fuel rods. The Fukushima reactors use both types (I think).
I think coal is safer. But dirty. Renewables are the way to go, as much and as quickly as possible. Maybe in combination with best-practice fossil fuel technology as we make the transition. It's the only long-term solution.
All of this is of course just my own amateur opinion....
Coal's radioactivity is measured as 830 Bq/kg. Uranium's radioactivity is measured as 12,356 Bq/g. To give us the same scale of measurement we need to multiply the Uranium figure by 1000. Gives us:
Coal - 830 Bq/kg
Uranium - 12,356,000 Bq/kg
So yes, I do think coal is safer.
Cheers
Stephen
But if we put this into perspective.. coal burning products are released into atmosphere, while spent nuclear fuel is not.
Also, there is no inherent safety of anything - if we are careless with coal burning plants, they may be much more unsafe than well kept nuclear plant.
We are talking about nuclear plant only when something bad happens.
Fukushima disaster is a disaster of course, but clearly, there were very wrong decisions made about it in the past (it was meant to be decommissioned 10 year ago?).
And, it was not the reactor which failed - it was the cooling system, diesels choked by incoming water brought by tsunami.
So... if those "peripheral" issues were handled properly on time, the disaster wouldn't happened.
Yes, I agree coal is very unsafe. The accumulative effects of coal and other fossil fuels are very big issues, maybe the biggest we've had to face? I just don't think nuclear power is the whole answer, or should even be part of the answer. I think there is always the possibility of something unforseen happening, so despite the best safety precautions there is always a risk. And with nuclear, the potential is for an accident to become a catastrophe.
The whole energy issue is so complex. It may be that my own ideas about nuclear are incorrect, so I'm going to do a bit of research to try and understand a bit more. I'll also try to unpack the Fukushima situation a bit for Brian, (and myself!)
I think coal is safer. But dirty. Renewables are the way to go, as much and as quickly as possible.
The Fuskushima reactors have been in commercial operation since 1971, 1974, 1976, 1978, 1978 and 1979 respectively (reactors 1 to 6). Over this time, they have been continuously producing 460, 784, 784, 784, 784, 1,100 MW (instantaneous power rating), respectively. This energy is directly responsible for Japan's economic development since 1970. Japan's economic development since 1970, has been directly contributing to the world's and your lifestyles, and economic well-being over this time frame.
I'd call that benefit.
"Renewables" for producing this amount of power, (instantaneous), were not available over this time frame. They are still not available. Wishing that such alternatives was/are real does not make them real. Technological development is not purely a function of investment. Technology development is usually a medium-high economic risk factor. Economic risk can result in serious widespread massive economic disaster and massive death/casualities.
I'll say it again … Technological development is not purely a function of investment … the relationship between the acquisition of knowledge derived from research, is not linearly related to investment funding. Humans take time to accumulate knowledge. Time is an independent variable, and is invariant of human investment.
Quote:
Originally Posted by renormalised
People need to get a little perspective about nuclear materials and the harm they can cause.
Yep ! I'll go one step further, and state that people need to learn what parameters are involved in 'making something happen'.
All conversations on this topic constantly imply that humans can make viable technical/economic alternatives appear out of thin air. There is no historical evidence of this.
Coal's radioactivity is measured as 830 Bq/kg. Uranium's radioactivity is measured as 12,356 Bq/g. To give us the same scale of measurement we need to multiply the Uranium figure by 1000. Gives us:
Coal - 830 Bq/kg
Uranium - 12,356,000 Bq/kg
So yes, I do think coal is safer.
Cheers
Stephen
That's not how it works. Your figures are correct but it's what comes out the coal that is the problem....radon gas. Many coal seems are full of the gas because the sediments the coal is buried in and the many rocks which underlie coal measures are full of it themselves, since they contain uranium.
In any case, apart from any radioactive substances that maybe present, you have the problems of coal dust, methane and everything else that is associated with health and safety problem in coal. Let alone burning the stuff and releasing CO2, NO2, H2S, SO2 etc etc. If you think coal is safer, then you're fooling yourself.
"Fukushima-I (Daiichi) has six boiling water reactors (BWR), ranging from 460 MW to 1100 MW, started up between 1970 and 1979. Fukushima-II (Daini) has four 1100 MW BWRs, commissioned between 1981 and 1986. Eleven nuclear reactors were in operation and three in planned outage in the coastal areas of Japan...when the tsunami struck (my words)..... All units had emergency shutdowns. In the follow-up, seven reactors declared a nuclear emergency, in particular because of lack of power supply and deficient cooling systems.
So, I'm not sure if comparing the environmental impact of a 100kW reactor to at least 5 1100MW and 5 at least 460MW reactors has any real validity here.
As far as the Hiroshima and Nagasaki situations, I reckon there would be a huge difference in the effects of an atmospheric explosion compared as opposed to a partial meltdown. Also, the amounts of fissile material would be far greater in the case of 10 reactors plus 40 years of waste.
As far as getting perspective about nuclear materials and the harm they can cause, here's some perspective from someone who has experienced the harm they can do first-hand....
You can quote all the figures you like in comparison, the amount of radioactive material released by the natural nuclear piles in the Gabon far exceeds anything that's ever been released by humans. It's a matter of timescale. It's not a matter of kilowattage.
The Hiroshima and Nagasaki bombs never released as much radioactive material into the environment. However, the effects are still the same as the isotopes are the same. The effects on the environment, whilst limited to the immediate areas for the most part as the fallout from those two bombs was limited (due to their small size), was still comparable to a nuclear meltdown in a plant. However, the initial effects were much more immediate, since they were atmospheric bomb bursts. They released far more radioactive substance via atmospheric effects than those reactors have, except in the case of a protracted period of release by those reactors.
A far as perspective goes, I'm more than aware of it myself, but the link will enlighten those that aren't.
Steven is right. Even if we use coal, NP andall the alternative energy we can introduce we need more energy Android removing any source is not easy.
But the question raised here really was what are the current dangers andlong term issues for Japan andothers. What fears are reasonable. How much dangerous material has been lost andspecifically how long will it float around before it becomes Android acceptable level.
One side suggests there is nothing to worry about the other hold Android opposite view. What is a realistic view of long term harm Android the extent of effcts.
Alex
I was just making the point that, in terms of radioactivity, I believe coal is much safer. I was talking strictly in terms of inherent radioactivity, nothing else. I don't think I'm fooling myself. I'm trying to learn about this stuff, and I'm completely comfortable with being totally wrong. As I learn more my views may well change.
Quote:
Originally Posted by renormalised
However, if you think coal is safer...think again. It is also radioactive, or can be.
