Hard Light Productions Forums
Off-Topic Discussion => General Discussion => Topic started by: Grizzly on August 15, 2011, 02:01:22 pm
-
Since the other thread was locked for a very obvious reason, I tried to look for answers, preferably from a very reliable source.
For example, the WHO. It had a report (http://www.iaea.org/Publications/Booklets/Chernobyl/chernobyl.pdf).
Please read it. 'tis usefull. For those people who are extremely lazy and don't want to read it: 31 Acute Radiation Sickness deaths directly attributed to the incident. Excluding 17 deaths that may or (certainly) may not be related to the catastrophe. An (very rough) estimate of 4000 fatal cancer deaths due to the radation on the general populace (Not yet happened, may be coming) on top of the 100000 deaths of fatal cancer due to other causes. An increase of thyroid cancer in children, most of which succesfully cured with positive health outlook.
But honestly, read it. Since I am skipping trough right now (since I have to go to bed already, early up tomorrow) and have probably missed a lot of important things. But read it.
Seriously.
Do so.
EDIT: Or read this for the short version (http://www.who.int/mediacentre/news/releases/2005/pr38/en/index.html)
-
The whole previous conversation also failed to recognize that the investigation following the Chernobyl accident very clearly outlined that the Soviets failed to follow basic design precautions (well known at the time) and intentionally conducted a test supervised by poorly-trained staff, which resulted in disaster.
Yes - people died or were very sick as a result of Chernobyl. The fault, however, lies with egregious human errors and not nuclear technology as a whole.
Oh yeah, and the radioactivity being measured on the west coast of Canada is 3.6 milliBecquerels (a Becquerel is decay of one radioactive nucleus per second) per cubic metre of air. For some context, we all have potassium-40 in our bodies, and a constant internal radioactivity of 4,433 potassium-40 atoms disintegrating each second of our lives. Or so. And the half-life of Iodine-131 is 8 days. So, as an explanation courtesy of a friend of mine puts it responding to an alarmist piece in BC media:
So, The Straight is raising alarm bells over one nuclear disintegration which you might catch in 24 days, completely ignoring the constant internal radioactivity of 4,433 potassium-40 atoms disintegrating each second of your life.
Step away from the iodine tablets, folks. You'll be ok.
-
it's a pretty safe assumption that anything nuclear or radiation you see in the media is sensationalist.
-
it's a pretty safe assumption that anything nuclear or radiation you see in the media is sensationalist.
Indeed, pointing to Fukashima and Chernobyl and saying nuclear power is dangerous is like saying we should ban all cars because cars designed and built in the late 50's and 60's are not as safe as what we can build today.
-
Indeed, pointing to Fukashima and Chernobyl and saying nuclear power is dangerous is like saying we should ban all cars because cars designed and built in the late 50's and 60's are not as safe as what we can build today.
Not even that. It's more like claiming since one car stalled out on the freeway, cars are unsafe.
-
I'd put it as "one drunk driver wrecked and took out several pedestrians in the process, therefore cars are unsafe".
It's still a ridiculous argument.
I enjoyed MP-Ryan's post. I was extremely skeptical of the claims that the radiation from Fukushima was reaching Canada/US in even remotely dangerous levels, but never knew the hard numbers. Typical radiation fear-mongering, it seems. I'm sure astronauts go through far worse on every mission, 'specially the men who went to the moon. (They talked about seeing flashes of light when their eyes were closed, due to the cosmic rays passing through their heads -- creepy!) :shaking:
-
When comparing danger of energy sources, deaths per TWh produced is the most objective criterion. Using this, nuclear may even rival renewables in safety due to sheer amount of energy produced, IMHO.
-
How to explain the exploding cancer rates throughout the world the past twenty years though, even though food quality and hygiene is generally going up? That's something I'd like answered at least, assuming radiation is safe; I don't know what else can or has caused it to increase so much - unless it's not rising at all.
Another thing that supports the argument/fact that radiation is safe, the EPA raised the safe limits of radiation after Fukushima by several thousand fold, so it seems we were wrong in our worries about radiation in the first place?
Just to understand this train of thought, so I can place it better.
-
It does need to be remembered that technology for detecting Cancer has only recently been available, I suspect that it was rife in smog-laden Victorian London, but back then it was simply referred to as 'a long illness'. If you couple that with the burgeoning medical facilities in many countries that used to have very limited access to modern medicine, it may simply be that we are detecting more cases, rather than there being more cases, as it were.
That said, this has little to do with the concentration of Cancer cases around areas such as Chernobyl etc.
-
Cancer rates are not exploding (http://www.cancer.org/Research/CancerFactsFigures/CancerFactsFigures/cancer-facts-figures-2011). They are even going down. You do see something raising a lot: lung cancer by males, but that has more to do with smoking becoming affordable (and the going down stuff to it becoming frowned upon) over the century.
ANd... what the hell, due the increased food quality and hygiene going up, there are more deaths due to cancer, simply because it becomes harder to die another way.
Another thing that supports the argument/fact that radiation is safe, the EPA raised the safe limits of radiation after Fukushima by several thousand fold, so it seems we were wrong in our worries about radiation in the first place?
They did not. They did raise the safe limits for radiological workers, so that hte radiological workers in Fukushima could maintain working without having to be replaced every 20 minutes. I do not know how much though.
-
Been looking at the EPA's raised safe limits, it seems the source where it started was the following link:
http://www.peer.org/news/news_id.php?row_id=1325
"According to PEER (Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility, the new standards would drastically raise the levels of radiation allowed in food, water, air, and the general environment. PEER, a national organization of local, state, and federal employees who had access to internal EPA emails, claims that the new standards will result in a “nearly 1000-fold increase for exposure to strontium-90, a 3000 to 100,000-fold hike for exposure to iodine-131; and an almost 25,000 rise for exposure to radioactive nickel-63″ in drinking water. This information, as well as the emails themselves were published by Collapsenet on March 24.
In addition to raising the level of permissible radiation in the environment, PEER suggests that the standards of cleanup after a radioactive emergency will actually be reduced. As a result, radioactive cleanup thresholds will be vastly lowered and, by default, permissible levels of radiation will be vastly increased in this manner as well."
That makes it a claim though... since I was unable to find a specific press release by EPA - They would want to calm people down in wake of Fukushima that radiation isn't a problem (I guess unless you're at the site).
So I guess I was 'almost' right if it were a EPA press release.
-
So I guess I was 'almost' right if it were a EPA press release.
But it isn't. It's rather far from it.
-
So I guess I was 'almost' right if it were a EPA press release.
But it isn't. It's rather far from it.
I mean to say, I did quote it right, but it turned out not be from the EPA itself but a claim, meaning its not true. The EPA would inform us in a press release if it was true, though they seem to have ignored PEER's claims nonetheless, it could be sue able for stating something that isn't true.
-
I geuss there is no need to attract unnecesary attention for something that is designed to attract unnecesary attention.
-
I get the impression JCDNWarrior, like so many members of the general public, hears the word "radiation" and immediately has visions of nuclear reactors/weapons creating havoc without really understanding what radiation is.
Radiation consists of a wide variety of waves and particles that occur naturally, emitted from a source. Radiation can be ionizing or non-ionizing. Generally, ionizing is the type that CAN (but does not always) have effects on living cells; non-ionizing is typically less harmful (although some forms can still cause DNA damage). Visible light and radio waves are examples of non-ionizing radiation; high-energy ultraviolet light (which is blocked by our atmosphere) is a type of ionizing radiation, as are X-rays and gamma rays.
We are exposed to ionizing radiation every day of our lives, from birth to death, in fairly large naturally-occurring quantities from a variety of sources. Ionizing radiation from non-natural sources drops off quickly with distance and time from source. This is why radiation from "nuclear sources" (weapons, reactors) is actually quite a bit less dangerous than the general public is prone to believing.
-
How to explain the exploding cancer rates throughout the world the past twenty years though, even though food quality and hygiene is generally going up? That's something I'd like answered at least, assuming radiation is safe; I don't know what else can or has caused it to increase so much - unless it's not rising at all.
No, no. No. You've got it all wrong.
Cellphones don't cause cancer. Cancer causes cellphones (http://xkcd.com/925/). (I admit that I sort of forced that joke)
-
When comparing danger of energy sources, deaths per TWh produced is the most objective criterion. Using this, nuclear may even rival renewables in safety due to sheer amount of energy produced, IMHO.
Not even close. Nuclear is by far the safest method to generate electricity.
http://nextbigfuture.com/2011/03/lowering-deaths-per-terawatt-hour-for.html
Coal – world average 161 (26% of world energy, 50% of electricity)
Coal – China 278
Coal – USA 15
Oil 36 (36% of world energy)
Natural Gas 4 (21% of world energy)
Biofuel/Biomass 12
Peat 12
Solar (rooftop) 0.44 (less than 0.1% of world energy)
Wind 0.15 (less than 1% of world energy)
Hydro 0.10 (europe death rate, 2.2% of world energy)
Hydro - world including Banqiao) 1.4 (about 2500 TWh/yr and 171,000 Banqiao dead)
Nuclear 0.04 (5.9% of world energy)
-
How to explain the exploding cancer rates throughout the world the past twenty years though, even though food quality and hygiene is generally going up? That's something I'd like answered at least, assuming radiation is safe; I don't know what else can or has caused it to increase so much - unless it's not rising at all.
That's why you have to be really careful when looking at figures. The whole anti-vaccination movement is based on the claim that the number of autism cases is rising. In fact there is no difference in the number of people who actually have autism. What changed was.
1. Increased early detection of autism.
2. A redefinition of the term to include all autism spectrum disorders including the higher functioning ones.
So if you change the definition of what autism is AND get better at detecting it, of course it will look like a rise in the number of cases.
You're seeing much the same here with cancer. If people live longer and we get better at telling that people have cancer of course the number of cancer victims will go up. No external factors are needed to explain that.
-
Coal – world average 161 (26% of world energy, 50% of electricity)
Coal – China 278
Coal – USA 15
Oil 36 (36% of world energy)
Natural Gas 4 (21% of world energy)
Biofuel/Biomass 12
Peat 12
Solar (rooftop) 0.44 (less than 0.1% of world energy)
Wind 0.15 (less than 1% of world energy)
Hydro 0.10 (europe death rate, 2.2% of world energy)
Hydro - world including Banqiao) 1.4 (about 2500 TWh/yr and 171,000 Banqiao dead)
Nuclear 0.04 (5.9% of world energy)
oh, hey, I remember posting that once as well.
-
It's quite a remarkable find. Nuclear is arguably safer than wind. :P
Because wind doesn't produce as much, but still!
-
I heard somewhere that a lot of the nuclear waste being stored could be recycled into new reactor fuel? Is that true? It doesn't make sense that we'd store it instead of reusing it in that case.
I've noticed this discussion has left out the problem of nuclear waste in regards to nuclear safety, though I guess it's not technically about that specific area. Maybe if things got bad enough with coal and oil, or education in general about radiation and nuclear power were improved, people would be more willing to use nuclear power. On the flipside, that does generate more waste product. The best option for disposal IMO is to shoot it into the sun, but people are very risk adverse and rockets have an occasional tendency to detonate in mid-air. Still, with the amount of launches that go off without a problem, I'd say it's a reasonable risk to take. Thoughts on the nuclear waste issue?
-
1) doing so is potentially hazardous, though not by much compared to every other aspect of nuclear energy
2) it's presently more expensive than just digging up new material, but this is due to...
3) it's a relatively new technology.
-
We're storing it untill it gets cheaper :P.
-
I've noticed this discussion has left out the problem of nuclear waste in regards to nuclear safety, though I guess it's not technically about that specific area.
Maybe it left out that problem because it isn't a problem.
-
I've noticed this discussion has left out the problem of nuclear waste in regards to nuclear safety, , though I guess it's not technically about that specific area.
This thread was started because of JCDNWarrior saying that a million people died because of Chernobyl (and that Fukushima's radioactive fallout was apperently dangerous to the US, though I might have misread that bit). So no, it does not technically fall into this specific area.
But who cares! Lets just talk about it anyway :D
Maybe it left out that problem because it isn't a problem.
Isn't the question on where to dump nuclear waste a rather big problem?
-
I heard somewhere that a lot of the nuclear waste being stored could be recycled into new reactor fuel? Is that true? It doesn't make sense that we'd store it instead of reusing it in that case.
I've noticed this discussion has left out the problem of nuclear waste in regards to nuclear safety, though I guess it's not technically about that specific area. Maybe if things got bad enough with coal and oil, or education in general about radiation and nuclear power were improved, people would be more willing to use nuclear power. On the flipside, that does generate more waste product. The best option for disposal IMO is to shoot it into the sun, but people are very risk adverse and rockets have an occasional tendency to detonate in mid-air. Still, with the amount of launches that go off without a problem, I'd say it's a reasonable risk to take. Thoughts on the nuclear waste issue?
yes, fuel can be recycled. it isn't because the government doesn't allow it.
shooting waste into the sun is completely unnecessary. waste storage is only thought to be a problem because of the massive NIMBY response. we don't really even need a large site yet. all the waste we have now from the 40 odd years of running nuclear plants is stored on-site in pools or concrete casks.
-
Isn't the question on where to dump nuclear waste a rather big problem?
Only because of environmentalist fear mongering combined with massive scientific illiteracy.
we don't really even need a large site yet. all the waste we have now from the 40 odd years of running nuclear plants is stored on-site in pools or concrete casks.
We had one in Yucca mountain, and it was almost finished but then it was canned by Obama.
-
what we should do is take all the nuclear waste in the world and put it into a big pile, then nuke it.
-
what we should do is take all the nuclear waste in the world and put it into a big pile, then nuke it.
And then turn off all radiation detectors and claim everything is safe ;) A good way to kill everyone off in time, Nuke. Though the depleted uranium in ammunition and bombs does a lot to help already.
What are people's ideas for alternatives though? I keep hearing about Thorium (sp?) reactors or salt water reactors, someone brought it up to me when Fukushima happened. Or should we stick to what we have?
-
what we should do is take all the nuclear waste in the world and put it into a big pile, then nuke it.
And then turn off all radiation detectors and claim everything is safe ;) A good way to kill everyone off in time, Nuke. Though the depleted uranium in ammunition and bombs does a lot to help already.
What are people's ideas for alternatives though? I keep hearing about Thorium (sp?) reactors or salt water reactors, someone brought it up to me when Fukushima happened. Or should we stick to what we have?
fail.
uranium isnt very radioactive by itself, provided its not undergoing fission, du is even less so. it is however very chemically toxic.
du is used for weapons for 2 reasons:
1: high density
2: its pyrophoric
there just arent many substitutions that meet both requirements. you can get desnity with lead, but you loose the ability to have it liquify and jet out on impact and reduce its effectiveness at penetrating armor, allowing it to cook canned meat.
-
The best option for disposal IMO is to shoot it into the sun, but people are very risk adverse and rockets have an occasional tendency to detonate in mid-air. Still, with the amount of launches that go off without a problem, I'd say it's a reasonable risk to take.
I wouldn't bet on it being reasonable. You'd have to make 100% sure rockets never detonate, or that the waste is fully contained if they do. This and the amount of launches needed would make it all extremely expensive.
-
The best option for disposal IMO is to shoot it into the sun, but people are very risk adverse and rockets have an occasional tendency to detonate in mid-air. Still, with the amount of launches that go off without a problem, I'd say it's a reasonable risk to take.
I wouldn't bet on it being reasonable. You'd have to make 100% sure rockets never detonate, or that the waste is fully contained if they do. This and the amount of launches needed would make it all extremely expensive.
waste of potential fuel, id rather see any viable material be used for rtgs for space probes than simply thrown away somewhere you will never be able to recover it.
-
what we should do is take all the nuclear waste in the world and put it into a big pile, then nuke it.
And then turn off all radiation detectors and claim everything is safe ;) A good way to kill everyone off in time, Nuke. Though the depleted uranium in ammunition and bombs does a lot to help already.
What are people's ideas for alternatives though? I keep hearing about Thorium (sp?) reactors or salt water reactors, someone brought it up to me when Fukushima happened. Or should we stick to what we have?
fail.
uranium isnt very radioactive by itself, provided its not undergoing fission, du is even less so. it is however very chemically toxic.
du is used for weapons for 2 reasons:
1: high density
2: its pyrophoric
there just arent many substitutions that meet both requirements. you can get desnity with lead, but you loose the ability to have it liquify and jet out on impact and reduce its effectiveness at penetrating armor, allowing it to cook canned meat.
I know, DU has good uses, but at first was a type of specialized munition from the cold war only meant for if a war with Russia would start, with the T-72s and other tanks rolling into Europe, and there was a lot of resistance to it's implementation. Since after 2000 it was declared safe for use and started to be used as primary ammunition even in Afghanistan and Iraq with no enemy tanks to be found since the invasions.
-
I know, DU has good uses, but at first was a type of specialized munition from the cold war only meant for if a war with Russia would start, with the T-72s and other tanks rolling into Europe, and there was a lot of resistance to it's implementation. Since after 2000 it was declared safe for use and started to be used as primary ammunition even in Afghanistan and Iraq with no enemy tanks to be found since the invasions.
Safe... for use?
-
DU is nearly twice as dense as lead. . . and it isn't used because of its flammability. Tungsten is a drop in replacement for DU in munitions, but it is much more expensive.
-
Isn't the question on where to dump nuclear waste a rather big problem?
Only because of environmentalist fear mongering combined with massive scientific illiteracy.
So scientifically lecture us then, since I am eager for arguments to throw at my brothers :D.
-
1) doing so is potentially hazardous, though not by much compared to every other aspect of nuclear energy
2) it's presently more expensive than just digging up new material, but this is due to...
3) it's a relatively new technology.
1)Sure, but it's really just running another reactor.
2)See 1.
3)Nope. Nuclear reprocessing has been done almost since the beginning of nuclear energy. It wasn't banned in the US until Carter issued an executive order in 1978 (?). It's still done by basically everyone else in the world that operates NPPs, or they have contracts with another country that does it for them.
-
DU is nearly twice as dense as lead. . . and it isn't used because of its flammability. Tungsten is a drop in replacement for DU in munitions, but it is much more expensive.
Not quite. It lacks the self-sharpening quality of DU, so tungsten would not perform as well as DU in the armor-piercing role. Tungsten has generally replaced DU in the non-armor-piercing roles (Phalanx CIWS rounds come to mind), but DU is going to remain in any task that might require the armor-piercing role for the foreseeable future.
(Also the suggestion it's not used because it's flammable is laughable at best, if you have to kill a tank, you want to kill it with an ammo explosion if you can because it'll never get fixed.)
-
DU is nearly twice as dense as lead. . . and it isn't used because of its flammability. Tungsten is a drop in replacement for DU in munitions, but it is much more expensive.
yea instead of cooking occupants of armored targets alive, you rip em to shreds with a hard round bouncing around inside the tank or whatever. very humane. du works well because as soon as it is hit with a reasonable amount of ke (relative to the round of course), it instantly vaporises and expands. this expansion cools it down and it condenses as a liquid, all of which happens in about the time it takes to burn through the armor, so you get heat and pressure followed by a spray of hot metal upon the aforementioned canned meat.
-
Ahha. . . I must listen to the History Channel more critically
-
Ahha. . . I must listen to the History Channel more critically
You should include the whole of A&E's various networks, along with that.
-
Really, you just shouldn't listen to the History Channel at all.
-
Really, you just shouldn't listen to the History Channel at all.
Unless you get History International. That's somewhat safer.
-
To be fair, back in the day, History channel was alright. It wasn't perfect, or groundbreaking, but it was alright. You know, back when they were stuck in their rut, rutting about Hitler.
-
To be fair, back in the day, History channel was alright. It wasn't perfect, or groundbreaking, but it was alright. You know, back when they were stuck in their rut, rutting about Hitler.
What about their "groundbreaking" work on ancient aliens (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ancient_Aliens)?
-
"back in the day"
-
The subject continues on though.
http://ajw.asahi.com/article/0311disaster/fukushima/AJ201108166394
The article said that radioactive substances were detected in a 252,000-square-kilometer area within 800 kilometers to the east of Fukushima Prefecture. It said the level of cesium-137 was up to 300 times higher than corresponding concentrations in waters near China. Strontium-90 was detected at levels up to 10 times higher than those found in Chinese waters.
-
Both of those isotopes are only ever going to be found in nature as a result of nuclear reactions. Cesium-137 in fact is not even found in nature. That means that finding any at all is going to be massively more than would usually be present. It doesn't by and of itself mean there is a danger.
It's like finding a car in the middle of the Amazon forest and extrapolating that cause you've found it there must be a pollution danger to the forest cause of all those car exhausts.
-
Both of those isotopes are only ever going to be found in nature as a result of nuclear reactions. Cesium-137 in fact is not even found in nature. That means that finding any at all is going to be massively more than would usually be present. It doesn't by and of itself mean there is a danger.
It's like finding a car in the middle of the Amazon forest and extrapolating that cause you've found it there must be a pollution danger to the forest cause of all those car exhausts.
So if Cesium 137 concentrations are 300 times normal, and normal concentrations are 0, does that mean the Cesium levels are 0? :P
-
Yes. It does.
-
So if Cesium 137 concentrations are 300 times normal, and normal concentrations are 0, does that mean the Cesium levels are 0? :P
There are traces of it around from nuclear bomb tests, Chernobyl, etc but yeah, 300 times very very little is still very little.
-
I understand that fruit grown on Bikini Atoll is inedible because Cesium has replaced Potassium isotopes in the fruit itself, making the fruit quite toxic.
-
I understand that fruit grown on Bikini Atoll is inedible because Cesium has replaced Potassium isotopes in the fruit itself, making the fruit quite toxic.
If true, that's freaking awesome.
-
I don't know it for a fact, saw it on the Discovery Channel: but here's a study that seems to confirm it. Better equipped people, feel free to demolish it. Study (https://docs.google.com/viewer?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.hss.doe.gov%2Fhealthsafety%2Fenv_docs%2F200104.pdf)
-
It wouldn't surprise me, given the sheer amount of nuclear material detonated there.
-
I'm kinda surprised there are plants there