News Is Obama's Endorsement of Nuclear Power a Liberal Shift?

[MotoH]

How easier is it for terrorists to perform a nuclear attack once they steal a chunk of raw material?

Depends on who it is.

Chechens, most likely not.

Al Qaeda, closer, but still not there

Hamas, ehhhh I think Mosad has a close eye on them to not let anything happen.

Taliban, The greatest chance in my opinion. They have backing from the Pakistani government, safe haven in Pakistan, and are very extensive and organized.

 

[rootX]

Depends on who it is.

Chechens, most likely not.

Al Qaeda, closer, but still not there

Hamas, ehhhh I think Mosad has a close eye on them to not let anything happen.

Taliban, The greatest chance in my opinion. They have backing from the Pakistani government, safe haven in Pakistan, and are very extensive and organized.

He was seized in a morning raid on a madrassa near Karachi by Pakistan's ISI intelligence service on 8 February, a security source told the BBC.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/8517375.stm
(Page last updated at 14:58 GMT, Tuesday, 16 February 2010)

 

[mgb_phys]

How easier is it for terrorists to perform a nuclear attack once they steal a chunk of raw material?

Quite easy, at least for magnox fuel your could hit somebody over the head with a fuel rod and cause a concussion, RBMK fuel rods are a lot bigger and heavier you could drop one on somebody's toe.

 

[turbo]

Taliban, The greatest chance in my opinion. They have backing from the Pakistani government, safe haven in Pakistan, and are very extensive and organized.

The Taliban are tolerated in Pakistan because they cannot easily be controlled or tracked. The thought that the Pakistan military/govt would breach security and allow religious fundamentalists access to nuclear weapons is beyond crazy. The Taliban would not have the knowledge or technology to use them, and any such transfer would prompt India to wipe Pakistan off the map. Game over.

 

[mgb_phys]

If your only concern is the quality of security guards guarding a facility, that is easily remedied.

Put the TSA in charge?

 

[turbo]

Put the TSA in charge?

Is that a tube of lip-gloss in your pocket?

 

[MotoH]

The Taliban would get it from Russia. Pakistan is pulling away from the Taliban right now because the US is telling them too, and India is backed by the US.

Dont forget that we had Baradar captured a long time ago, but the Pakistani government told us to let him go.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

The Taliban would get it from Russia. Pakistan is pulling away from the Taliban right now because the US is telling them too, and India is backed by the US.

Dont forget that we had Baradar captured a long time ago, but the Pakistani government told us to let him go.

We are working closely with Russia and other former Soviet States, to contain all nuclear materials. They also see this as a highest priorety.

When the Soviet collapsed, the security of their nuclear materials were seriously compromised. In many cases, guards at nuclear facilities, including weapons facilities, left their posts to go find food. Others left because they were no longer receiving any pay.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

Have you evaluated the security systems of a nuclear-power site? Believe me, it's not just high-end rent-a-cops at checkpoints. You'd be be surprised how many interlocking security systems surround each such plant. Not just fences, sensors, cameras, guards... I shouldn't get into too much more detail than the obvious, but our nukes are well-monitored.

...and people who fall asleep on the job. A camera monitored by a sleeping or otherwise distracted person, has no value.

What gets me isn't just that it happened, it happened soon after 911. What happens after people begin to relax?

 

[MotoH]

All reactors and waste dump sites should be guarded by the military as suggested before. If Obama is going to put this much money into new reactors, he should also make sure they are properly guarded.

 

[zomgwtf]

...and people who fall asleep on the job. A camera monitored by a sleeping or otherwise distracted person, has no value.

What gets me isn't just that it happened, it happened soon after 911. What happens after people begin to relax?

You think that there is only a single security guard looking after an entire plant?

I don't envy his job that's for sure.I think you should look up more information on how the security is actually handled and what occurs in the event of an attack instead of just throwing around OH TWO SECURITY GUARDS FELL ASLEEP. Who cares really? I'm sure they were dealt with and if a terrorist force had made a plot to attack while they were asleep I can assure you that they will probably not succeed in attacking the plant let alone getting a hold of spent or partially spent rods.

Why would they even go through all this trouble anyways to get their hands on something that's not even weapons-grade. Sure it's not impossible to use in a bomb but why would you go through all (trust me it's a lot) that trouble to mount an attack to get it? Especially when it's available elsewhere. I think it might even be easier for them to just start investing money in their own research and development and work that way.

 

[mheslep]

Re 'dirty bomb', if it was so easy then everyone would do it.

It's not asserted that it is easy; it is asserted that it is difficult but catastrophic.

Calculate the mass specific activity for your favorite nuclides. I think that you'll find that ones with sufficient activity to be particularly difficult to clean up can't be assembled in a large mass without acute exposure problems. ...

I doubt that people who would fly planes into buildings would get hung up about acute exposure for the chance to empty out a small city.

 

[mheslep]

People often point to our military as an example of nuclear power made safe. Okay, fine, let's do that. Use the military.

I point to the civilian sector as an example nuclear power made safe from accidents. To my knowledge, nobody's ever suffered any radiological problems from the operation of a nuclear pressurized water reactor (PWR) commercial design. I'm less sanguine about nuclear proliferation.

 

[MotoH]

edit: mis-statement, sorry.

 

[Cyrus]

Deaths from US Nuclear Reactor programs: 0

Source? (I happen to know that's wrong).

 

[WhoWee]

http://www.aolnews.com/article/obama-backs-nuclear-plants-with-billions-in-loans/19360343

While in principle I don't support the use of nuclear power, the pro-nuclear people here and the lack of available options have worn me down. I think we need to pursue other options with great diligence, but nuclear power seems to be an unavoidable evil.

Also, I trust Obama's good judgement.

Just another hole in the boat for those who recklessly apply "liberal" labels to Obama.

Obama's spending has earned him the label. However, I'm glad he's flexible - maybe he'll endorse some drilling next.

Unfortunately, the project still needs to clear the regulatory process - we'll soon see if he intends to close the deal - or is just paying lip service to the Right.

 

[mgb_phys]

Deaths from US Nuclear Reactor programs: 0

Depends on how specific you are being about 'Reactors' there have been 10 US criticallity deaths at processing plants and at Los Alamos.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

I point to the civilian sector as an example nuclear power made safe from accidents. To my knowledge, nobody's ever suffered any radiological problems from the operation of a nuclear pressurized water reactor (PWR) commercial design. I'm less sanguine about nuclear proliferation.

All of these allusions to the past are moot. We now live in a world of terrorism - foreign and domestic. If a few knowledgeable people were to gain access to and control of a nuclear plant, and had the proper materials, could they cause a catastrophic failure and meltdown?

Yes.

It has already been shown that even in a time of crisis, we cannot depend on the private sector. The fact that we've never had a catastrophic event, is not an argument. The point is to avoid problems, not to wait until we have one.

All of this equivocation only tells me that the public is not ready for nuclear power. We lack the social responsibility.

 

[MotoH]

Well my source was misinterpreted, sorry for the confusion.

Three technicians died in 1961 at a plant in Idaho Falls from the result of an accident in an experimental reactor.

8 workers contaminated in 1981 at Sequoyah 1 in Tennessee.

Again sorry for confusion.

 

[russ_watters]

Right. Without 'permanent' waste disposal like Yucca Mountain, that TOTUS closed, it's empty posturing. Welcome to the third world banana 'republic' of Obamanation!

The words sound promising, but it confuses me too. He's still stalling on the nuclear waste issue (where's my Yucca report?) and $8.3 B is a fairly small sum considering the cost of a nuclear plant and the size of the stimulus bill. Yet there is political risk in even saying what he's saying.

I honestly don't know what to make of it.

 

[MotoH]

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/04/14/AR2006041401209.html"

I know it is old, but it sums up some things nicely. If we could start replacing coal plants with reactors, it would reduce the United States' carbon footprint dramatically.

 

[russ_watters]

The video tapes of not one, but two security guards at nuclear power plants, sleeping while on-duty, not long after 911, did not convince me that we have anything even close to a failsafe system. That showed me that for all of the posturing, there is no way to control the human element...

We were told this was all safe even while three mile island was on the verge of melting down; while the two most knowlegable people in the country were screaming at each other and didn't know what to do...

What is already done to work around the human error element is to simply engineer human error (and a host of other potential errors) out of the equation. You engineer plants that fail off instead of failing on.

TMI is evidence of the success of the safety engineered into American reactor designs.

But, at this point energy independence is probably more important that safety concerns. Better to potentially lose one city than all of them. Also, the sooner we can gain energy independence, the sooner we can get out of the ME. Ultimately, our need for oil is the reason that we have terrorists.

Yes, one thing about risks is the risk of losing one city, based even on the worst potential projections by assuming all reactors are as bad as Chernobyl, is still very low. And more importantly, we'd have to lose a city every 10 years or so to compare to the people that already die due to regular air pollution.

I don't know what sort of operation we might need to prepare for. Do you? Please provide your sources.

Nevertheless, you are basing your fear on something, aren't you? What is your source for believing there is a terrorism threat lurking in our nuclear plants? And a clarification I'd ask for:

My biggest concern is the proliferation of nuclear materials; for dirty bombs, for example.

Your use of the word "proliferation" is confusing to me. Proliferation is other countries getting the capability to generate their own nuclear fuel, isn't it? What you are really worried about is people stealing our nuclear fuel, right?

 

[mheslep]

All of these allusions to the past are moot. We now live in a world of terrorism - foreign and domestic. If a few knowledgeable people were to gain access to and control of a nuclear plant, and had the proper materials, could they cause a catastrophic failure and meltdown?

Yes.

That maybe correct, I don't know, but I'm sceptical. The answer to that question must require some fairly sophisticated analysis to a difficult problem. The lesson of Three-Mile Island is that containment works. It is far from clear, to me at least, that a 'few knowledgeable people' could blow open the containment, assuming they could melt down a modern reactor.

The fact that we've never had a catastrophic event, is not an argument.

Of course it is. Observation provides evidence over time, not certainty. The lack of an event for ~100 reactors over 30-50 years is a significant data point, though it is not conclusive. It is very suggestive, for instance, that adding, say, 10% more reactors is not going to change the reality of whatever risk we have now. I'd be much more concerned about a plan to build another 500 reactors in 20 years, in that case I'd like to know much more about the risk.

 

[russ_watters]

can you calculate the psychological and economic effects (beyond the cleanup) of an "ineffective" dirty bomb ?

No, but neither can you. It isn't any more reasonable to assume they'd be devistating than it is to assume they wouldn't. And based on how low the actual physical risks really are, I tend to suspect the phsychological risks would work themselves out relatively quickly.

 

[russ_watters]

What we will do with the spent material is also a valid concern. Obama want's a bipartisan commission to sort this out.

This is why I don't trust Obama: He promised us he'd create a commission and they'd have an answer by now. And he hasn't done it yet. This ain't like 'Gitmo - he could have kept this promise with the simple stroke of a pen. Why didn't he?

 

[russ_watters]

Source? (I happen to know that's wrong).

A Google for "nobody has ever died from nuclear power" turns up a host of results confirming at least the spirit of the claim. The claim wasn't quite specific enough, though. It should be 'No one has ever died from radiation from a western nuclear power plant'. There are other forms, though, such as:

According to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, "Since commercial nuclear power plants began operating in the United States, there have been no physical injuries or fatalities from exposure to radiation from the plants among members of the U.S. public."

http://www.manhattan-institute.org/energymyths/myth7.htm

 

[russ_watters]

We are working closely with Russia and other former Soviet States, to contain all nuclear materials. They also see this as a highest priorety.

When the Soviet collapsed, the security of their nuclear materials were seriously compromised. In many cases, guards at nuclear facilities, including weapons facilities, left their posts to go find food. Others left because they were no longer receiving any pay.

Indeed, with all the Russian nuclear fuel people assume is available on the black market, it makes me wonder why people are worried at all about the security of American nuclear fuel.

 

[russ_watters]

All of these allusions to the past are moot. We now live in a world of terrorism - foreign and domestic. If a few knowledgeable people were to gain access to and control of a nuclear plant, and had the proper materials, could they cause a catastrophic failure and meltdown?

Yes.

Source and specificity? Certainly, they could cause a "catastrophic failure", but what does that even mean? Can they cause a "China syndrome"? Certainly not? Chernobyl? Certainly not. TMI? Certainly. But if TMI is all terrorists are capable of doing, then there is no real public health risk.

Again, you are basing your fear on an assumed risk that has no basis outside your own recursive fear inside your head!

Here's an article discussing nuclear power and terrorism: http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/library/report/crs/rs21131.pdf

Operating nuclear reactors contain large amounts of radioactive fission products
which, if dispersed, could pose a direct radiation hazard, contaminate soil and vegetation,
and be ingested by humans and animals. Human exposure at high enough levels can
cause both short-term illness and death, and longer-term deaths by cancer and other
diseases.
To prevent dispersal of radioactive material, nuclear fuel and its fission products are
encased in metal cladding within a steel reactor vessel, which is inside a concrete
“containment” structure. Residual heat from the radioactive fission products could melt
the fuel-rod cladding even if the reactor were shut down. A major concern in operating
a nuclear power plant, in addition to controlling the nuclear reaction, is assuring that the
core does not lose its coolant and “melt down” from the heat produced by the radioactive
fission products within the fuel rods. Therefore, even if plant operators shut down the
reactor as they are supposed to during a terrorist attack, the threat of a radioactive release
would not be eliminated.
Commercial reactor containment structures — made of steel-reinforced concrete
several feet thick — are designed to prevent dispersal of most of a reactor’s radioactive
material in the event of a loss of coolant and meltdown. Without a breach in the
containment, and without some source of dispersal energy such as a chemical explosion
or fire, the radioactive fission products that escaped from the melting fuel cladding mostly
would remain where they were. The two meltdown accidents that have taken place in
power reactors, at Three Mile Island in 1979 and at Chernobyl in the Soviet Union in
1986, illustrate this phenomenon. Both resulted from a combination of operator error and
design flaws. At Three Mile Island, loss of coolant caused the fuel to melt, but there was
no fire or explosion, and the containment prevented the escape of substantial amounts of
radioactivity. At Chernobyl, which had no containment, a hydrogen explosion and a
fierce graphite fire caused a significant part of the radioactive core to be blown into the
atmosphere, where it contaminated large areas of the surrounding countryside and was
detected in smaller amounts literally around the world.

The fact that we've never had a catastrophic event, is not an argument. The point is to avoid problems, not to wait until we have one.

It isn't an argument, it is a statistic that enables us to calcuate at least an upper bound on the risks posed by nuclear power. Ie, you can assume a Chernobyl-style accident happens in the US tomorrow* and base your risk assessment on that. If you do that, you still end up with nuclear power being the right choice.

All of this equivocation only tells me that the public is not ready for nuclear power. We lack the social responsibility.

Ready or not, they've lived with it just fine for the past 40 years!

*And hopefully you realize that even that method is orders of magnitude unreasonably conservative

 

[mheslep]

... And based on how low the actual physical risks really are, I tend to suspect the phsychological risks would work themselves out relatively quickly.

In a modern society, I suspect the opposite. http://pubs.acs.org/cen/_img/86/i46/8646gov2_view.jpg" , which was 35 years ago and perhaps overblown.

 

[russ_watters]

In a modern society, I suspect the opposite. http://pubs.acs.org/cen/_img/86/i46/8646gov2_view.jpg" , which was 35 years ago and perhaps overblown.

I'm not sure that's entirely accurate or representative:

-The Love Canal dump site is huge and old and as a result extremely difficult to clean up. In a that way, that makes it worse than a dirty-bomb.
-People can't build homes on it because it is still a federally controlled site, fenced-in, with chemical monitoring equipment sticking out of the ground. Nevertheless, people are building homes next to it:

In the 1990s, the city "reclaimed" some of the boarded-up houses and declared the area outside the perimeter safe. But in order to obtain mortgages, buyers had to sign waivers that they would not later sue.

David Bower, who was one of the first to buy a home from the city (for $38,000), pays little attention to the fenced wasteland just one street away.

"I'll be honest," the 42-year-old detective told ABCNews.com outside his renovated ranch home. "This is the most tested part of the country. I know what's in the soil."

"It needs to go to rest," he said of the efforts of the outspoken Love Canal children. "I eat the vegetables in my garden and I'm not glowing in the dark."

http://abcnews.go.com/Health/story?id=5553393&page=4

and...

[from 1998] However, the rest of Love Canal has been declared safe by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. A public corporation took ownership of the abandoned properties, fixed up the homes and resold them.

Susan Bloss of the Love Canal Revitalization Agency said the agency has sold 232 of the 239 homes it renovated. Love Canal, which once symbolized hidden toxic wastelands, is now known as Black Creek Village.

The new residents of Black Creek Village feel safe in their new homes. "This area has been tested and tested and tested," said homeowner Trudy Christman. "This is the most tested piece of real estate in the United States."

http://www.cnn.com/US/9808/07/love.canal/