The Nuclear Power Thread

[theroyprocess]

How do you know

So far as the cancer rate estimate of 200 years ago I
remember from decades ago...why do you presume the
study did not take into account death from other causes?
There is no safe level for radiation...avoid it if you can.

 

[chroot]

Originally posted by theroyprocess
So far as the cancer rate estimate of 200 years ago I
remember from decades ago...why do you presume the
study did not take into account death from other causes?

Because, as a scientist, I cannot trust someone else's assumptions -- ever. If you can't provide evidence that the researchers actually performed their analysis correctly, their conclusions are useless. I'm sorry, but you remembering something from a paper you read decades ago just won't cut it for "scientific evidence."

There is no safe level for radiation...avoid it if you can.

Of course. In industry, people strive for doses that are ALAP -- As Low As Possible. This is just common sense.

- Warren

 

[russ_watters]

Originally posted by theroyprocess
There is no safe level for radiation...avoid it if you can.

Clearly. But you don't understand what that means: Virtually all of the radiation you are exposed to you CAN'T avoid. And the amount of that radiation that comes from man-made sources is too low to measure. So wear sunscreen. Heck, wear lead underwear. It won't keep you from getting colon cancer.

Though I won't say it as bluntly as Warren, I too wonder where you get your misconceptions. I said in the beginning of the thread that I hoped to help educate the ignorant. But that isn't you. You have clearly made a great effort to gather all of the INCORRECT information you can on the subject. Through the course of your research, I am CERTAIN you must have accidentally stumbled upon mountains of correct information and conclusions. Why you choose to believe wrong information and wrong conclusions, I can't begin to understand, much less help you fix. Is it conscious - do you know the truth but have an adjenda you want to pursue so you consciously choose to ignore the truth? Or is it unconscious - do you have some sort of bias or blindness or fear that doesn't allow you to recognize the truth when you see it or reach logical conclusions when you do have correct information (you even cited information that supports what I said - your 10 years after Chernobyl link)? I just don't know.

Those who are ignorant and willing to learn or have incorrect ideas and are willing to learn I can help. Those who have incorrect ideas and are not willing to learn, I can do nothing for. Fortunately, there are a lot more of the former than the latter.

 

[theroyprocess]

Go to Chernobyl

Go to Chernobyl...talk to the people...go to the hospitals,
talk to the doctors if they arn't too afraid to speak.
Have a nice mushroom omelette...and check it with your
Geiger counter.

It will happen again...somewhere.

 

[chroot]

Originally posted by theroyprocess
Go to Chernobyl...talk to the people...go to the hospitals,
talk to the doctors if they arn't too afraid to speak.
Have a nice mushroom omelette...and check it with your
Geiger counter.

It will happen again...somewhere.

Oh no! Boogedy-boogedy! Beep, beep, Ritchie!

- Warren

 

[theroyprocess]

Too Late for Alarms

Can't fool mother nature...and get away with it !

Human Sperm In Dramatic Decline Scientists Warn
By Aaron Derfel Montreal Gazette
http://www.montrealgazette.com 7-3-1

Scientists from around the world are alarmed by a
dramatic increase in genetically damaged human sperm -
a trend that is not only causing infertility in men,
but also childhood cancers in the offspring of those
who can reproduce.

It's now estimated that up to 85 per cent of the
sperm produced by a healthy male is DNA-damaged, a
leading authority on the subject revealed yesterday at
an international conference being held in Montreal.

"That's very unusual," said John Aitken, head of
biological sciences at the University of Newcastle in
Australia.

"If you were to take a rat or a mouse or a rabbit,
usually more than 80 per cent of their sperm would be
normal."

For the last 20 years, scientists have known about
declining sperm counts. But researchers are now
learning that the quality of human sperm is steadily
eroding, and might be causing birth defects as well
as brain cancer and leukemia in children.

Abnormal sperm is also being blamed for a global
increase in testicular cancer - a disease that strikes
men in their 30s. Scientists believe that when a
DNA-damaged sperm fertilizes a woman's egg, it can
trigger a mutation of a key gene in the embryo.

And even if men today can reproduce, their damaged
sperm might lead to infertility in their male progeny,
Aitken suggested. "You're likely to see lots of
diseases that are related to poorer semen quality."

Scientists suspect a wide range of environmental
causes for the abnormal sperm - from exposure to
pesticides and heavy metals to electromagnetic
radiation.

"We're all exposed to 10 times more electromagnetic
radiation than our forefathers," Aitken said. "It's
all the electrical appliances we use, including
microwave phones."

There is a consensus in the scientific community
that men who smoke cause damage to their sperm, and
that this might be responsible for childhood cancers.
"If you are a man and you smoke, your semen profile
won't be obviously affected," Aitken said. "You'll
still have lots of sperm swimming around and you'll be
fertile. But the DNA in your sperm
nucleus will be fragmented."

The average ejaculate of human sperm contains 80
million spermatazoa, each genetically programmed to
fertilize a woman's egg. Scientists examining human
sperm have discovered that not only are sperm counts
on
the decline, but that the vast majority of sperm is
sluggish, poorly structured, their DNA fragmented and
that they generate a lot of cellular waste called free
radicals.

"Generally speaking, everything is bad with the
sperm," Aitken said.

Fortunately for most couples, it's the undamaged
or least damaged sperm that tends to fertilize the
egg.

As a result of increasing male infertility,
scientists have developed a new technique to help
couples conceive. It's called Intra-Cytoplasmic
Sperm Injection (ICSI). In the lab, a technologist
will take from the would-be father a single sperm, or
even a cell that is on its way to becoming a sperm,
and fertilize it in the test tube with the woman's
egg. The resulting embryo is then transferred to the
woman's uterus.

Dr. Keith Jarvi, of the University of Toronto-Mount
Sinai Hospital, said the ICSI technique has
revolutionized the treatment of male infertility. But
he wondered about the health outcomes of the ICSI
children.

That human sperm is of poorer quality than that of
other mammals is not surprising. The human species is
the only one that wears clothes, and healthy sperm
need to be kept a couple of degrees cooler than the
full body temperature. But clothing alone is not
responsible for the extent of abnormal human sperm,
Aitken argued.

http://www.montrealgazette.com/news/pages/010622/5081326.html

Aaron Derfel's E-mail address is
<aderfel@thegazette.southam.ca>
______________________________
(c) 2001, The Montreal Gazette
http://www.montrealgazette.com


=====
"We're all downwinders!" Check
out http://www.downwinders.org

 

[chroot]

Uh right... my cell phone is making my nuts sick? This is retarded. Where do you find this crap?

- Warren

 

[theroyprocess]

Politics of Science

FYI

MANIFESTO FOR PR. BANDAZHEVSKY'S RELEASE AND
FREEDOM OF RESEARCH

Pr. Yury Bandazhevsky is currently imprisoned
in Minsk, Belarus since
June 2001. As a Doctor and an Expert on radiation
exposure caused by the
Chernobyl accident he was appointed in 1990 as
Rector of the Gomel Medical
institute. Gomel has been the hardest hit area by
nuclear releases. From
1990 to 1999, along with his wife Galina, also a
Doctor, Pr. Bandazhevsky
studied damages caused by Caesium 137: heart
diseases, cataracts, early
aging, etc.. He has discovered a measurable
relationship between nuclear
doses and various symptoms. In 1999, he published
his results at a time
when many people wanted to turn a blind eye to the
problems and wish to send
Belarus inhabitants back to the lands that are
still contaminated. Before his
arrest in July 1999 he had written a report
critical of the Belarus Government
official research conducted with international
funds regarding Chernobyl
after effects. Pr. Bandazhevsky was arrested
shortly after the issuance of
this report on the basis of a Presidential Decree
" for the Combat of
terrorism."

In 2001, he stood accused of having received
money from students
seeking admission to Gomel Medical Institute.
After a trial held before a
Military Tribunal he was sentenced to eight years
imprisonment. Expert
witnesses who attended the trial have noted at
least 8 infringements of the
Belarussian Criminal Code and the main prosecution
witness had retracted his
statement against Pr. Bandazhevsky. Pr.
Bandazhevsky is currently jailed in
a penal colony with harsh conditions tantamount to
a Gulag.

But we think that the right to a fair trial
is not the only one to have
been thwarted. Beside people's opinions about
things nuclear, what is at stake is
the RIGHT TO KNOW THE TRUTH, the right to conduct
research and the scientist's
right to communicate data. Also the right for
people to know it without
interference that is politically or economically
motivated.

THE INDEPENDENCE OF ALL RESEARCH in the
services of Humanity is as
important a principle as the independence of
Justice. Pr. Bandazhevsky's
imprisonment flouts both these principles.
Therefore, we, the undersigned,
ask for the immediate and unconditional release
of Pr. Bandazhevsky in
order that he can carry on his research without
interference at his
Institute.

We suggest that all scientists, researchers,
scholars and citizens
stand for these principles:

- Sign this manifesto for freedom of research
and Pr. Bandazhevsky's
unconditional and immediate release.
- But also to have Pr. Bandazhevsky appointed as
a Best Man (or Honourable
Citizen) of their cities, such as Paris and
Clermont-Ferrand (France)
- Or have him appointed as Doctor Honoris
Causa in their universities

We wish to publish this Manifesto in a large
newspaper and send it to the
Belarus Government. Please sign it and pass it
to all parties interested in justice, freedom of
speech, freedom to conduct objective research and
human rights asking them to sign it, too. Your
help is greatly appreciated and will go a long way
in helping to free Dr. Bandazhevsky and promote
accurate research and publication of the radiation
induced effects of Chernobyl on humanity.

 

[theroyprocess]

RF Radiation Health Threat

RF radiation health threat news story from Scotland.

http://www.sundayherald.com/print32689

 

[theroyprocess]

Sea Birds Radioactive

NewScientist.com


Sea birds drop radioactivity on land


19:00 02 January 03
Andy Coghlan


Droppings from seabirds could be introducing radioactive isotopes into the food chain. That is the conclusion of researchers who found high levels of radioactivity in droppings and plants on an island close to the Arctic.

If tests confirm that the guano is bringing radioactivity ashore, it will need to be factored into pollution assessments that gauge radiation risks to human health and ecosystems. The risk is probably low at temperate latitudes, but could be much greater in the fragile wastes of the Arctic. There, guano is a major source of nutrients for plants, which are then eaten by animals.

Radioactive material gets into the oceans from natural geological processes on the sea floor, but radioactive isotopes from human nuclear activity can add to this. In the Arctic, radioactive material has been dumped in the Kara Sea to the east of the Barents Sea.

And radioactive material from nuclear accidents such as the 1986 Chernobyl disaster has reached the seas, along with particles from atmospheric tests of nuclear weapons.


Vast piles


The evidence that bird droppings are bringing radioactivity ashore comes from Mark Dowdall and his team at the Norwegian Radiation Protection Authority in Tromsø. They spent two years between 2000 and 2002 collecting soil, vegetation and guano samples from a remote coastal inlet called Kongsfjord on the Arctic archipelago of Svalbard, about halfway between the northern tip of Norway and the North Pole.

The samples of bird droppings were from vast piles produced by two colonies of seabirds supporting kittiwakes, puffins and fulmars. Tests showed the guano contained 10 times the concentration of radioactive isotopes found at other sites on the island.

The researchers found unusually high concentrations of the natural radioisotopes uranium-238 and radium-226, which decay to form more hazardous isotopes. But they also found high concentrations of the isotope caesium-137, which does not occur naturally. Dowdall suspects this is from the fallout of atmospheric nuclear tests carried out decades ago.

Tests on vegetation growing near the guano also revealed high concentrations of radioactive material. "It means that low levels in the Arctic environment don't stay low, they become concentrated," he says.


Fish and crustaceans


Dowdall believes the birds eat contaminated fish and crustaceans, and the radioactive material is then concentrated in their faeces. The extra nutrients the droppings provide encourage plants to grow, and the plants take up and concentrate the radioactive material.

This poses a problem, because plants make up the bulk of the diet of many animals, especially that of indigenous reindeer. "We're talking about a very vulnerable environment, and when reindeer eat the [contaminated] vegetation, it's in the food chain," says Dowdall.

Environmental researchers are intrigued by the finding. "I don't think people have looked at this particular pathway before," says Scott Fowler at the International Atomic Energy Authority's Marine Environmental Lab in Monaco.

However, in 1999, pigeons roosting in contaminated buildings on the site of British Nuclear Fuels' Sellafield reprocessing complex in Cumbria were found to contain 40 times the European Union's safe limit of caesium-137.


19:00 02 January 03

 

[russ_watters]

Ok theoryprocess, enough with the flooding. It isn't helping you any. And why don't you read your own link - the one titled "Chernobyl: Ten Years On Radiological and Health Impact." It confirms what I said about the [LACK OF] severetiy of the accident. 38 deaths from acute (immediate) radiation sickness (several other people died in the accident, but they were killed by the fire) and a statistically significant increase in only ONE type of cancer in the immediate area of the accident (several hundred cases of a curable form of thyroid cancer).

Now: could you PLEASE tell me how you can think that is worse than the 70,000 people who are killed by air pollution in the US EVERY YEAR.

With the radio tower thing, I'm also getting a much clearer picture of where you are coming from - you're a "dark ages" environmentalist. Someone who is anti-technology in general. Well, my friend, the first place to start is always with yourself - you posted all those floods with a computer. And [gasp] it uses electricity. There are several "dark ages" environmentalists who I have heard of who have gotten rid of all of their technology and gone to live in national parks. Those at least I respect - they aren't hypocrites.

 

[enigma]

Originally posted by russ_watters
Now: could you PLEASE tell me how you can think that is worse than the 70,000 people who are killed by air pollution in the US EVERY YEAR.

I'll second that. This is not your personal soapbox. Unless and until you can answer that question, anymore of your "articles" will be deleted.

This thread did have a point before you took it upon yourself to derail it.

 

[theroyprocess]

Nuclear age death toll

Causing premature involuntary death is homicide whether
its some 200,000 a year from routine care in hospitals
Ralph Nader cites...or any other cause. But to say
Chernobyl only killed 38 people and to minimize the
worst industrial catastrophe in human history is like
saying the Holocaust never happened ! One Chernobyl
should have been enough.

http://www.mothersalert.org/victims.html

 

[enigma]

But there has only been one Chernobyl, and 70,000 die each year from hacking death due to coal plants. Chernobyl happened once, killing far less than 70K per year. Which is the greater evil?!?

 

[russ_watters]

Originally posted by theroyprocess
Causing premature involuntary death is homicide whether
its some 200,000 a year from routine care in hospitals
Ralph Nader cites...or any other cause. But to say
Chernobyl only killed 38 people and to minimize the
worst industrial catastrophe in human history is like
saying the Holocaust never happened ! One Chernobyl
should have been enough.

On rereading the article YOU PROVIDED, I must correct myself - the number is 31, not 38. And that includes those who burned to death (ie died from causes other than radiation).

In any case, your answer is insufficient. Feel free to explain yourself and answer the question I posed, but further rants will be deleted.

And congratulations - in the two months I have been a mentor, your post was the first I have felt the need to edit.

Also, the last article you posted sounds complicated and technical enough to fool people who don't read it closely enough (thats probably why it is made to sound so complicated and technical), but it contains glaring errors in the assumptions and calculations. I would hope though that most lay people picked up on the fact that the title doesn't match the later statements - 1.2 vs 1.3 billion (overall casualties).

Also using the rate of 10 million and doing a reality check on how it relates to the 1.2 billion number brings up a glaring mismatch, seeing as how nuclear power/weapons have only been around for about 50 years. If the injury/death rate scaled linearly (it wouldn't - it would scale geometrically, reducing the total further) and the Earth's population doubled since 1950, that would equal a total of 125 million casualties. Her own calculations don't match each other by an order of magnitude.

Further, such numbers are so high we would see them - clustered around nuclear power plants. The assumption of a uniform exposure of the entire Earth's population besides being preposterous allows her to ignore the fact that there is no statistically relevant increase in cancers in the vicinity of nuclear power plants.

 

[theroyprocess]

Spin

Not technical enough...or too technical...here is a
good source of material that the layman can understand
but no doubt you will find some reason to dismiss it.
It is very rare for scientists to get enough funding to
do proper 'independent' studies.


EDITED by enigma


*flooding deleted*

I wasn't kidding. No more links, no more articles. Not until you answer this:

Now: could you PLEASE tell me how you can think that is worse than the 70,000 people who are killed by air pollution in the US EVERY YEAR.

The remote chance to kill a few hundred people and the chance to increase the probability of getting cancer by a fraction of a percent for a few hundred people

vs.

A guaranteed mortality rate of 70,000 per year plus a dramatic increase in asthma and other breathing related illnesses.

How is the first one worse?

 

[theroyprocess]

Radiation is invisable

I hope this answers your question. I think death by radiation
is worse [BECAUSE RADIATION IS INVISABLE, ODERLESS AND HAPPENS
WITHOUT INITIAL SENSATION] by the time a victim gets cancer 20
years more or less...it is impossible to prove a direct cause
and effect. It may take hundreds of years of studies to show
good evidence...by that time mankind will be extinct.

 

[russ_watters]

Originally posted by theroyprocess
I hope this answers your question. I think death by radiation
is worse [BECAUSE RADIATION IS INVISABLE, ODERLESS AND HAPPENS
WITHOUT INITIAL SENSATION] by the time a victim gets cancer 20
years more or less...it is impossible to prove a direct cause
and effect. It may take hundreds of years of studies to show
good evidence...by that time mankind will be extinct.

That is illogical, but I thank you for finally providing your opinion.

 

[HAVOC451]

While it's comendable to be concerned about the terribly high rate of respiratoy disease due to air pollution in the U.S., I'm not sure beating theroyprocess up over it is quite fair. It's illogical to say that to be anti-nuke is to be pro athsma. Were you guys equally insenced when the Bush administration gutted the Clean Air Act? Are you just as concerned with the problems many native american peoples are having with uranium mining ?

 

[russ_watters]

Originally posted by HAVOC451
While it's comendable to be concerned about the terribly high rate of respiratoy disease due to air pollution in the U.S., I'm not sure beating theroyprocess up over it is quite fair. It's illogical to say that to be anti-nuke is to be pro athsma. Were you guys equally insenced when the Bush administration gutted the Clean Air Act? Are you just as concerned with the problems many native american peoples are having with uranium mining ?

The part of this issue that has me most upset is the 50% of the electricity in the US that comes from COAL. This is the leading cause of air pollution and the leading cause of those 70,000 deaths, not to mention global warming and all the other effects of air pollution.

As far as the Clean Air Act goes, we should immediately do some more sweeping things such as require MASSIVE reductions in emissions by coal plants. Such things are possible, but expensive. And I think expensive is good - it will help the general public see the issue in terms they care more about since clearly people don't care enough about air pollution alone. The same goes for blackouts - blackouts are good because they show people the importance of making sound energy policy decisions.

The US is a "squeaky wheel" democracy. People only care about the issues that they percieve to be doing them immediate harm. Coal power isn't even on the radar for most people.

 

[RuiMonteiro]

Originally posted by russ_watters
True. And assuming your 20% number is right (sounds about right) it would require about 150 more nuclear plants to replace our existing coal plants.

So, there would be around 250 nuclear plants. So the quantities of radioactive elements released to the environment would increase a lot (and this only considering the quantities released officially, not counting accidents, like happened on norway (i think it´s norway) where a nuclear usine over there released, illegaly, to the environment radioactive elements during nine years directy to the environment, and at the end of this time, they said it was an 'accident'), and if there are more nuclear plants there is a need for more enriched uranium, and as i already said, the process to enrich uranium releases great amounts of green house gases, plus all the unnecessary elements.

Given the political climate, you are probably right - it won't be a realistic possibility any time soon. You never know though - if New York style blackouts start happening every week ten years from now (a real possibility), that just might change the political climate.
The difference between what I propose and what the "environmentalists" propose however is that my solution is real, would work, would reduce pollution, would not require massive changes in our energy usage, and would save lives. Environmentalist's plans don't even get to the "would work" stage.

The New York blackout happened due to bad managment on the energetic network. The US does not have a good energetic network and a simple failure in a power plant is enought to put milions in the dark.

There are several countrys with a very good energetic network like France or the country i live - Portugal - and our energetic resources are quite different, where France energetic resources are around 80% supplied by nuclear plants, while Portugal doesn´t have a nuclear plant, my point with this is that just because blackouts happen that doesn´t implie that the solution is to increase nuclear powers, an investment in the energetic network supply would do the work in the US (and this has nothing to do with the energetic needs of each country, it´s just a matter of organisation on the network supply).
I´m not saying the political climate would never change, but having in mind that it´s all about money, it´s very hard to happen, at least serious investments and dramatic changes would not happen, and considering this facts on how the New York blackout could have been prevented is just to say there isn´t a linear relation between the energetic production and the blackouts.



Rui.

 

[Greg Bernhardt]

Here are some articles on coal pollution:
http://www.netl.doe.gov/publications/press/2002/tl_lownoxcombustors.html
http://www.fossil.energy.gov/programs/powersystems/pollutioncontrols/
http://www.ceednet.org/cct_brochure/page03.asp
http://www.careenergy.com/news/articleview.asp?iArticle=75

 

[enigma]

Originally posted by HAVOC451
While it's comendable to be concerned about the terribly high rate of respiratoy disease due to air pollution in the U.S., I'm not sure beating theroyprocess up over it is quite fair.

I'm angry with theroyprocess not because of his beliefs, but because instead of stating his points, he's cutting and pasting pages and pages from all over the web to make his points for him without addressing any points made by the alternate viewpoint.

It's illogical to say that to be anti-nuke is to be pro athsma. Were you guys equally insenced when the Bush administration gutted the Clean Air Act?

Yes. I'm furious with Bush, and the Clean Air Act is one of the many reasons why.

Are you just as concerned with the problems many native american peoples are having with uranium mining ?

I didn't know about that issue, but there are major issues with the health of coal miners as well.

However, anecdotal evidence does not prove a case. No data, no case. My mother had breast cancer as well, and she's never been anywhere near a Uranium mine.

 

[theroyprocess]

Recycling Nuclear Waste In Consumer Goods

If this isn't premeditated murder...I don't know what is !

More to my point that the "invisibility" of radiation makes
the control and strict regulation of radiation a priority
above all else.

http://www.nirs.org/radrecycle/recycleupdate31303.htm

 

[enigma]

OH NO!

You mean they're putting radioactive material into our consumer products?!

You mean radioactive materials like CARBON-14?

Damn, that stuff is present in EVERYTHING!

Better get started on the regulation of that stuff.

Ignorant knee-jerk reactionary babble is what your links are. Each and every one of them.

 

[enigma]

OHMIGOD, I forgot about that awful radiating sunlight!

Sunlight causes more cancer each year than all the pollution ever caused by man. We need to get started with the regulation of that EVIL, EVIL, premeditated-murdering Sun.

If you are exposed to X (plus or minus 1%) amount of background radiation every single day of your life, then increasing that amount by X*10^-6 is not going to make one lick of difference. The definition of 'statistically insignificant'. You should learn some statistics. Seriously.

 

[enigma]

We need to ban Dihydrogen Monoxide!

That stuff is in everything... even our FOOD SUPPLY.

It causes frequent urination. It is a major component in acid rain. It is present in septic systems and they have no problem putting it in baby food.
It's possible to die from it if you are given too much of it.
Massive amounts have even been known to destroy the infrastructure of houses!
Certain isotopes of it are radioactive as well...

Ban Dihydrogen Monoxide!

*sheesh*

 

[theroyprocess]

Japan's Blackout Caused by Nukes

Back on topic...is nuclear power more dependable...
not in Japan.

http://www.economist.com/business/displayStory.cfm?story_id=1928646

 

[russ_watters]

Originally posted by RuiMonteiro
The New York blackout happened due to bad managment on the energetic network. The US does not have a good energetic network and a simple failure in a power plant is enought to put milions in the dark.

Thats only the trigger. The root cause is that our power grid is very near maximum capacity. Windstorms and breaking tree branches happen all the time. The cascade failure is a result of one failure leaving the next piece of the grid underpowered. That piece goes offline to keep from damaging the equipment. Then the next piece has to carry the extra load and it goes offline to keep from damaging its equipment. Et cetera, et cetera. What you probably didn't read about unless you live near Philly is that the cascade was stopped by PECO - a control center in Southeastern PA saw the cascade coming and disconnected the umbilicals connecting PECO's section to the rest of the grid. Otherwise the cascade would have continued down the eastern seaboard.

Anyway, an overloaded grid is what keeps a cascade going. Heck, read it in the link theroyprocess just provided about Japan.

The ministry, which oversees the electricity industry, is gearing up for a power shortage that could leave Tokyo facing unprecedented blackouts this summer, when demand for electricity reaches its peak. The reason: Tokyo Electric Power (Tepco), the world's largest private electricity company, had to close its 17 nuclear reactors...

Think its bad now? Its only going to get worse unless we do something about it.

I'll find you the stats, but the demand for electricity virtually everywhere in the western world is growing faster than the generating capacity and has been for some time. The primary cause is the lack of new nuclear power plants.

So, there would be around 250 nuclear plants. So the quantities of radioactive elements released to the environment would increase a lot

Rui, "so small its not detectable above background radiation" - times 2.5 - is still "so small its not detectable above background radiation."

 

[Nereid]

And don't forget cosmic rays

Hey enigma (and theroyprocess, if she's listening),

You should also recommend that folk abandon Denver, ski resorts, and other high places and move into the New York subway (people in England, Paris, Shanghai, etc ... please choose your favourite underground rail system). There will be a reduction in the exposure of humans to ionising radiation - from cosmic rays - many million (billion?) times greater than that which would result from closing all nuclear power plants.