Nuclear Power

[Lateralthinking1]

Thank you. It is helpful. There is a lot there but I shall read it. What specifically on toxicity did you have in mind?

[johnb]

Mahlerei - I genuinely hope that it doesn't get any worse. When I mentioned several days ago that it had been predicted by some that it would go around the globe, this was met with scorn, demands for source material, and accusations of ignorance - Lat.

The nuclear industry has been in denial of its true risks ever since it was set up. Anyone who disagrees with them is ignorant, a freak, a fanatic, doesn't live in the real world, should get a life, is exaggerating, etc.

Lat, once again you are spouting your usual nonsense and EA is doing much the same thing. What I actually said is quoted below.

It wouldn't surprise me if there were traces over Europe. However, they will be totally irrelevant as far as public health is concerned. (Good for spurious media scare stories though.)

The reason I haven't contributed to this thread for a while is because Lat's intention is to use the thread as an extended polemic/rant against nuclear power and I have zero interest in going along with that agenda.

Sure there are issues to be discussed but categorising everyone in the nuclear industry as conniving and evil is just plain silly.

By the way, Lat, you previously implied that some of the contributors to this thread, those who disagree with you) work in the nuclear industry. That is just plain nonsense.

You then suggested that because people here hadn't responded to some of your questions it showed how people within the nuclear industry avoided discussing matters openly. Once again - utter nonsense.

When really irritates me is how you profess to be interested in the subject but carefully refrain from making any effort to research or understand what you are talking about.

[Eine Alpensinfonie]

Allow me to spout more nonsense. We allow ourselves to have nuclear power stations, and would like to build more. The Iranians are "not allowed" to build nuclear power stations, because they might use the spent material to make nuclear weapons. Oh, but hang on a minute. We've already got them, so that must be OK.

Talk about double standards.

[Frances_iom]

You then suggested that because people here hadn't responded to some of your questions it showed how people within the nuclear industry avoided discussing matters openly. Once again - utter nonsense.

My own impression is that it would be impossible to hold a rational debate with someone who puts perceived risks as more important that real risks(measured + based on experience) and appears uninterested in doing some research - in the same way I now don't enter into debates with Mormons and Jehovah's witnesses as these people appear incapable of accepting any thing that clashes with their belief system.
And for the record though I was a chartered professional engineer it was not in the nuclear industry tho my education was initially in Physics - IMO the UK threw away 2 decades of possible development of the industry - mostly because of the political difficulty in fighting the scare stories put out by the media (and those brought up on Godzilla and two headed monsters of science fiction) - however our now utterly wasted gas fields will not help us through the next failure of international energy markets and competition for scarce resources.

[Lateralthinking1]

Yes, but these aren't facts, are they? Many of them are lies.

1. Lie: I said that everyone in the nuclear industry is conniving and evil.

Truth: I have not used either word. I am critical. I also said that I respected the people working at the plant on problem solving and that I had some time for the IAEA. The latter should be given greater powers.

2. Lie: I have implied that some of the contributors work in nuclear.

Truth: Bryn tried that old pony. Now it is repeated. Not some. One - and it wasn't even an implication.

3. Lie: I am uninterested in researching the subject.

Truth: I provide links and quotes that aren't commented on. I ask questions that you choose not to answer. I have thanked you for suggestions of reading and asked questions about those, ie toxicity, and these have been greeted with the usual silence. I have provided political context that you don't want to address. I have consistently provided facts - contrast my last but one post with the kind of obnoxious diatribe you have both just posted. Not a fact about the industry in them. Just a load of puerile rot.

4. Assumption: My comments about scorn were about you johnb.

Truth: They weren't. I actually commented on you positively in a recent post. I now retract it.

Polemic can only exist in a vacuum. It is not what I wanted. Let's see the evidence from you of what you have just stated. Otherwise, refrain.

(By the way, I realise that the comment on science fiction wasn't addressed to me personally, but I've never been a fan of it).

[Bryn]

Interesting to hear David King promoting MOx this morning on the Today Programme.

Tonight's PM had a relevant feature aound 17:30 too.

[Eine Alpensinfonie]

My own impression is that it would be impossible to hold a rational debate with someone who puts perceived risks as more important that real risks(measured + based on experience)

There is a difficulty here. Basing risks on experience involves exposing people to the risks in the first instance, and I for one am not comfortable with that.

[Frances_iom]

There is a difficulty here. Basing risks on experience involves exposing people to the risks in the first instance, and I for one am not comfortable with that.

presumeably then you gather your own fuel for the woodburning stove in your flat ? as more have been killed in the last few years in extracting coal, gas or oil than in the nuclear industry.
No one is denying accidents happen - all of these can be analysed both to try to prevent similar occurrences in the future but also to see what adverse effects it had - thus we can gauge the risks. Air crashes can give a good estimate of risk etc

[Eine Alpensinfonie]

presumeably then you gather your own fuel for the woodburning stove in your flat ? as more have been killed in the last few years in extracting coal, gas or oil than in the nuclear industry.
No one is denying accidents happen - all of these can be analysed both to try to prevent similar occurrences in the future but also to see what adverse effects it had - thus we can gauge the risks. Air crashes can give a good estimate of risk etc

I was thinking more of those out of the workplace. It's quite right to highlight the risks to the workers in all energy production, but I was making a different point.

[Bryn]

Sorry, F_i, you should know better than to promote wood-burning stoves, especially if they are to be used in built up areas. The level of carcinogens in their emissions constitutes a far greater risk then any from the nuclear power installations in the UK. The combustion takes place at a relatively low temperature and oxidation is far from complete. Dodgy thing, these wood-burning Agas.

[Frances_iom]

I was thinking more of those out of the workplace. It's quite right to highlight the risks to the workers in all energy production, but I was making a different point.

ok limit all road transport to 30mph or less - that will save well over a 1000 innocent lives due to RTAs per year (probably nearer 3000 pa)
everything we do in this interconnected society exposes others to unintended risks - the best we can do is to apply rational decision making to the activities not the irrational ones - eg we are about to start significant imports of LPG - not a nice material to have around - if a supply vessel goes up much of the docks will know about it.

[Budapest]

This is a long thread and I've only had the time to skim read it, so apologies if I've missed anything.

I just want to address what some folks were saying earlier in this thread, about there being no chance of a nuclear bomb explosion at Fukushima. That is quite correct: an uncontrolled fission explosion cannot occur in a reactor. However, an explosion of similar magnitude can occur when a reactor melts down. Melted fuel rods produce a lava-like substance called corium, which burns through the reactor vessel and flows down to a concrete chamber below. The concrete chamber beneath the reactor is a safety feature, designed to stop the corium from going straight down into the earth, where it would eventually reach the water table.

At Fukushima they’ve been pouring thousands of tons of sea water into the cooling pools and over the reactors, and it seems likely that the chambers beneath the reactors are flooded. If a reactor does go into full meltdown, and the corium hits that water, there could be a massive thermal explosion (mostly fueled by hydrogen as the corium vaporises the water - there are 140 tons of fuel rods in each of those reactors).

They had exactly the same problem at Chernobyl. During the early days of the crisis they poured thousands of tons of water in to the Chernobyl No.4 reactor. This water had absolutely no effect on the fire, but it did flood the chambers beneath the reactor. Valeri Legasov, a leading Soviet scientist and one of the team brought in to deal with the disaster, realised what would happen if the molten core of the reactor reached the water. Legasov estimated that the resulting thermal explosion would be in the order of 2 to 4 megatons, and would flatten everything within a 20 mile (30km) radius of the plant. Furthermore, the radiation thrown high into the atmosphere by the explosion would render a large part of Europe and the western Soviet Union uninhabitable for decades, if not hundreds of years.

Grim stuff. At Chernobyl, three divers volunteered to go into the flooded chambers to manually turn valves that would release the water. It was a successful mission. However, two of the divers died shortly afterwards from radiation sickness. It’s not known if the third diver is still alive. Incidentally, on the second anniversary of Chernobyl, Valeri Legasov committed suicide, out of remorse for his part in the cover-up by the Soviet authorities.

One would hope that TEPCO (Tokyo Electric Power Company, who run the plant) are aware of the dangers of a thermal explosion, and are ensuring that the chambers beneath the Fukushima reactors are kept clear of water.

[Frances_iom]

One would hope that TEPCO (Tokyo Electric Power Company, who run the plant) are aware of the dangers of a thermal explosion, and are ensuring that the chambers beneath the Fukushima reactors are kept clear of water.

maybe you should communicate this to US government - see http://www.ne.anl.gov/facilities/edl...y_experiments/
re experiments on very hot corium in water cooled pools

[BBMmk2]

I hear that with the world wind currents, quantities of radiation particles. have been found in Glasgow but quite negligable.

[Flosshilde]

Sorry, F_i, you should know better than to promote wood-burning stoves, especially if they are to be used in built up areas. The level of carcinogens in their emissions constitutes a far greater risk then any from the nuclear power installations in the UK. The combustion takes place at a relatively low temperature and oxidation is far from complete. Dodgy thing, these wood-burning Agas.

Actually, Bryn, woodbunring stoves are permitted in built-up areas now, as the modern ones produce very little carbon. I know several people who have installed one, & gather scrap wood left laying around in the street. (redundant whisky barrels also make good fuel - they burn particularly fiercely )

(I've fired a wood-burning kiln using whisky barrels - the temperature was probably close to 1300 degrees C - maybe even more in places)