The Pros and Cons of Nuclear Power

[Morbius]

l.
(great link, btw)

Russ,

If you like that one - also check out one of the other interviews; one with
Dr. Charles Till, former Associate Director of Argonne National Lab:

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/reaction/interviews/till.html

Dr. Till was one of my bosses 20 years ago when I was at Argonne and
working on the Integral Fast Reactor [ IFR ] that he describes.

Dr. Gregory Greenman
Physicist

 

[russ_watters]

The high school science teacher asked, "You say that shark's tooth is
100 years old?" He told her, "That's right!". To which she responded,
"Well if that shark's tooth is 100 years old, how could it be radioactive;
since Man didn't invent radioactivity until 1945?"

I was aghast. Somewhere in the Bay Area is a high school science teacher
that is teaching her high school students that Man invent radioactivity
in 1945!

I think I'm going to vomit.

I visited Limerick when I was a cub scout (I still live about 15 miles away). I think it should be a part of the curriculum in whatever grade a child is first exposed (pun intented) to radiation (8th or 9th?) that they visit a plant if one is within field-trip range.

 

[theCandyman]

How does someone like that come into a teaching job!?

Yes, education at an early age is probably the best way to prevent them from actually listening to the propaganda about nuclear power and the like, but for that there is a need for people who would want to teach younger children and know sufficient material.

 

[Astronuc]

How does someone like that come into a teaching job!?

Because primary or public school teachers are not necessarily trained (or at least rigorously that is) in the the subject that they teach. Instead they get a degree in education, and consequently many (most?) math/science teachers get little experience in rigorous math, science and engineering courses.

There are exceptions. My chemistry teacher in HS (30+ years ago) had a Master of Science Degree in Chemistry. One of the Physics teachers had a PhD from Caltech, but he only stayed for two years, then went to work for Shell R&D.

Currently, one of the Chemistry (Science) teachers at my daughter's high school is a retired chemist/chemical engineer from one of the development labs of a large oil company.

The American Nuclear Society and DOE/National Labs have outreach programs.

 

[Morbius]

Because primary or public school teachers are not necessarily trained (or at least rigorously that is) in the the subject that they teach. Instead they get a degree in education, and consequently many (most?) math/science teachers get little experience in rigorous math, science and engineering courses.

Astronuc,

Yes - several years ago, a colleague of mine took an early retirement and
wanted to teach high school Algebra.

He was a Ph.D. in Physics - and could have taught at the University level.

However, he couldn't teach high school Algebra until he went back to
school and studied education in order to get his teacher's certification.

Dr. Gregory Greenman
Physicist

 

[rdt2]

Astronuc,

Yes - several years ago, a colleague of mine took an early retirement and
wanted to teach high school Algebra.

He was a Ph.D. in Physics - and could have taught at the University level.

However, he couldn't teach high school Algebra until he went back to
school and studied education in order to get his teacher's certification.

Dr. Gregory Greenman
Physicist

And quite right too! Having a PhD is no guarantee of being a good schoolteacher. In fact, having a PhD and being a hotshot researcher is no guarantee of being a good university teacher.

 

[ohwilleke]

I think I'm going to vomit.

I second that thought. One reason people like this get their jobs is that there is a shortage of math and science teachers. Often they get people who aren't certified in the area.

Now, I agree with the point about certification being a problem that Mobius pointed out. There is a problem with people who have the content knowledge being unable to teacher due to lack of teacher's education courses, which are often dismal in quality. Professors teaching undergrads do just fine without them (although a happy medium between throwing people into teaching with no instruction about teaching, and throwing people into teaching with huge numbers of useless education courses, seems possible).

But, too often, certification of some kind overtakes subject area knowledge. It is easier to be an English teacher and get reassigned to teaching science when there is a shortage, than to be a scientist or engineer and get assigned to teaching science when there is a shortage.

 

[ohwilleke]

I am puzzled even more that while these people are aginst nuclear power, they would most likely not want to give up the benefits of nuclear technology.

I disagree with the notion that most people who are anti-nuclear are anti-technology. There is a group that is, but there is a far larger group that is not.

Also, while there is definitely an exaggerated fear of the risks of nuclear technology, the bigger problem in my mind is a lack of knowledge of the risks of non-nuclear technology to compare the risks of nuclear technology to.

Chernobyle is exaggerated. But, I don't think that there is anyone who would disagree that it was a bad thing that killed people. Likewise, while the actual harm caused by Three Mile Island was modest, I don't think anyone would disagree that the world would have been a better place if it hadn't happened. Nuclear engineers exist primarily to make sure that things like that don't happen.

The problem comes in when people analyze risk. They say, hmmm. . . there is bad stuff that happened when people used nuclear power, better stay with the status quo, instead of saying: There is bad stuff that happens with every kind of power, how bad is each?

If people had a better grasp of just how horribly dangerous coal fired power generation was on a life cycle basis, from mining accidents and black lung to environmental damage to habits and communities caused by coal mining, to transportation accidents caused when a much larger volume of fuel is moved, to accidents within coal fired plants, to illnesses caused by coal fired plant waste and emissions (and the talley isn't much better for the rare oil based plant, although natural gas is significantly better than either coal or oil, but quite expensive), I think a lot more people would appreciate the benefits of nuclear power and be less afraid.

But, most proponents of nuclear power don't really grasp that they need to educate people about coal even more than they do about nuclear power, if they want to make their point clear. They are busy educating people about nuclear power and then don't understand why people don't reach the same conclusion that they do.

 

[Moonbear]

I think I'm going to vomit.

I visited Limerick when I was a cub scout (I still live about 15 miles away). I think it should be a part of the curriculum in whatever grade a child is first exposed (pun intented) to radiation (8th or 9th?) that they visit a plant if one is within field-trip range.

I agree, as a teen I visited the Oyster Creek plant. Though, I was disappointed we didn't really get to see much of the actual plant, but it remained a valuable opportunity to learn a little from the experts.

One problem I recall from when I was young is that the one environmental hazard of the Oyster Creek plant was the water being dumped back into the river there that had been used to cool the reactor wound up warming the river temperature such that it changed the ecosystem. My parents used to have a boat docked along that river and all the boat owners had to move their boats to another location because some sort of worms or something were proliferating in the warmer water and destroying the hulls of the boats (back in the days of wooden boats). I really don't know much about it, just what my parents told me of having to move their boat (I was too young, though do remember vaguely moving to a new marina and being excited it had showers because it meant not having to bathe out of a bucket of cold water when we spent the night on the boat).

Anyway, just wondering if this is still an issue, or if plants have been modified to allow that water to cool more before being dumped back into rivers?

 

[Morbius]

I disagree with the notion that most people who are anti-nuclear are anti-technology. There is a group that is, but there is a far larger group that is not.

Also, while there is definitely an exaggerated fear of the risks of nuclear technology, the bigger problem in my mind is a lack of knowledge of the risks of non-nuclear technology to compare the risks of nuclear technology to.

Chernobyle is exaggerated. But, I don't think that there is anyone who would disagree that it was a bad thing that killed people. Likewise, while the actual harm caused by Three Mile Island was modest, I don't think anyone would disagree that the world would have been a better place if it hadn't happened. Nuclear engineers exist primarily to make sure that things like that don't happen.

The problem comes in when people analyze risk. They say, hmmm. . . there is bad stuff that happened when people used nuclear power, better stay with the status quo, instead of saying: There is bad stuff that happens with every kind of power, how bad is each?

ohwilleke,

Look at the comparison between nuclear power and airline travel.

Nuclear power has had one major accident in the USA, in nearly half
a century of using nuclear power. That one accident didn't kill anyone,
exposed the public to a minimal amount of radiation [ less than flying
in an airliner ]. The impact on the public was minimal; although the
utility took a substantial financial hit.

Now compare that to airline travel. In the last half century, there have
been quite a few major airliner crashes. These crashes have killed on
the order of a hundred people per crash, or there abouts. Flying in an
airliner subjects one to more radiation in a few hours than one gets
all year due to nuclear power.

Are there people protesting at airports? Do people want to shutdown
an industry that kills a couple hundred people every 2 to 3 years?

Of course airline travel is comparitively safe - especially when compared
with automobiles. The use of automobiles in the USA kills almost
50,000 people annually.

Where are the people protesting cars? Where are the people protesting
airlines? There aren't any. People are not afraid of travel in either
cars nor airliners [ some are, but not in general ].

However, they are scared by the nebulous fantasies of nuclear accidents.
The anti-nukes have somehow scared the public into believing that there
is a some catastrophe out there ready to strike. It will be a calamity
when it does - but it just hasn't happened yet - but when it does it will
be really, really BAD!

Somehow people buy into the scare-monger's vision over what the
actual history of the industry is. That's what I don't understand.

But, most proponents of nuclear power don't really grasp that they need to educate people about coal even more than they do about nuclear power, if they want to make their point clear. They are busy educating people about nuclear power and then don't understand why people don't reach the same conclusion that they do.

I quite frequently point out to those that are so phobic about the
radiation from nuclear power plants - that it PALES compared to what
the coal plants are putting out:

http://www.ornl.gov/info/ornlreview/rev26-34/text/colmain.html

Dr. Gregory Greenman
Physicist

 

[motai]

One problem I recall from when I was young is that the one environmental hazard of the Oyster Creek plant was the water being dumped back into the river there that had been used to cool the reactor wound up warming the river temperature such that it changed the ecosystem.

...

Anyway, just wondering if this is still an issue, or if plants have been modified to allow that water to cool more before being dumped back into rivers?

I know that the warm water coming from the nuclear plant at Crystal River is used by the local endangered manatees during the winter in Florida. It is helping them in a sense, so I am not sure that such a rule could apply to all reactors.

 

[Astronuc]

Anyway, just wondering if this is still an issue, or if plants have been modified to allow that water to cool more before being dumped back into rivers?

The problem is thermal pollution.

The Rankine thermodynamic cycle is approximately 33% efficient at the operating conditions of commercial nuclear reactors. This means that one has to eliminate 66% (2/3's) of the heat to the environment (the ultimate heat sink). The waste heat can be rejected to the air via cooling towers or into a body of water such as a lake or river.

The problem with the latter, is that the lake or river water can become much warmer than Nature would allow without the presence of a power plant.

Thermal pollution is an environmental issue with the Indian Point Nuclear Plant on the Hudson River, approximately 35 miles north of NY City. HOWEVER, thermal pollution of a lake or river is a problem regardless of the primary source of heat, be it fossil, e.g. coal, oil or gas, or nuclear. So, i.e. it is not a problem exclusive to nuclear energy. In parts of the country, as in the south, much of the energy is provide by coal burning plants.

To combat the thermal pollution, cooling towers may be built to reject more heat to the air (atmosphere). However, cooling towers add to the capital cost of the plant (i.e. less profit in a mature plant).

BTW - At Crystal River, unit 3 is nuclear, but units 1, 2 and 4, 5 are coal-burning.

 

[Morbius]

I agree, as a teen I visited the Oyster Creek plant. Though, I was disappointed we didn't really get to see much of the actual plant, but it remained a valuable opportunity to learn a little from the experts.

One problem I recall from when I was young is that the one environmental hazard of the Oyster Creek plant was the water being dumped back into the river there that had been used to cool the reactor wound up warming the river temperature such that it changed the ecosystem.

Anyway, just wondering if this is still an issue, or if plants have been modified to allow that water to cool more before being dumped back into rivers?

Moonbear,

For one thing - the fossil-fueled power plants also produce thermal
pollution - although to a somewhat smaller extent.

As Astronuc pointed out, the Rankine cycle of a nuclear power plant
is about 33% efficient. That means 67% of the heat energy produced
by the reactor is dumped into the water as heat, when the river or
lake water is used to cool the plant's condensors.

The same thing happens in a fossil plant. However, the boiler in a
fossil plant operates at a higher outlet temperature than the reactor.
The fossil plant is about 40% efficient - so you only have to dump 60%
of the heat energy produced by the boiler into the lake or river.

So the thermal pollution is 67% for the nuclear power plant and 60%
for the fossil-fuel plant. So the nuclear power plant produces a little
less than 12% more thermal pollution than a fossil plant of equivalent
size.

The way to eliminate the thermal pollution of the lake or river is by
the use of cooling towers - those great big hyperbolic towers that seem
to be the uniquely associated with nuclear power plants [ like Three
Mile Island ]. The cooling towers dump the waste heat directly into the
atmosphere.

Although the cooling towers are seen as a symbol of nuclear power -
they don't have anything to do with the reactor - just the steam cycle.
One could put these same cooling towers on a fossil-fueled boiler plant
as well.

So whenerver you see those big towers - like at Three Mile Island - you
know that the plant is NOT thermally polluting the river or lake.

Dr. Gregory Greenman
Physicist

 

[ohwilleke]

ohwilleke,

Look at the comparison between nuclear power and airline travel.

Nuclear power has had one major accident in the USA, in nearly half
a century of using nuclear power. That one accident didn't kill anyone,
exposed the public to a minimal amount of radiation [ less than flying
in an airliner ]. The impact on the public was minimal; although the
utility took a substantial financial hit.

Now compare that to airline travel. In the last half century, there have
been quite a few major airliner crashes. These crashes have killed on
the order of a hundred people per crash, or there abouts. Flying in an
airliner subjects one to more radiation in a few hours than one gets
all year due to nuclear power.

Are there people protesting at airports? Do people want to shutdown
an industry that kills a couple hundred people every 2 to 3 years?

Of course airline travel is comparitively safe - especially when compared
with automobiles. The use of automobiles in the USA kills almost
50,000 people annually.

Where are the people protesting cars? Where are the people protesting
airlines? There aren't any. People are not afraid of travel in either
cars nor airliners [ some are, but not in general ].

However, they are scared by the nebulous fantasies of nuclear accidents.
The anti-nukes have somehow scared the public into believing that there
is a some catastrophe out there ready to strike. It will be a calamity
when it does - but it just hasn't happened yet - but when it does it will
be really, really BAD!

Somehow people buy into the scare-monger's vision over what the
actual history of the industry is. That's what I don't understand.

I would dispute your characterization of how people view the airline industry. In fact, the public does insist on far greater regulation of the airline industry than it does have any other form of transportation. For example, if we had the equivalent of air traffic control for boats, there would be hundreds of lives saved every year. Every airline accident is routinely investigated by the federal government, and airlines are much more likely to be held liable for trivial negligence than someone driving a car.

Indeed, concern about airline safety expressed in lawsuits, has pretty much wiped out the general aviation industry. When, as in that case, the danger level was roughly equivalent to cars, juries, who are just members of the public after all, wiped out the manufacturers and everyone else in sight. The more familiar and better understood the risks are (and the more that people are personally taking the risks rather than entrusting someone else to take them for them) the more people are willing to tolerate the risk, even if the actual risk is higher.

Also, there is a piece of Murphy's law asserting itself. Anything that can go wrong will. The question in the eyes of the public is what can go wrong, and what the worst case scenario is. The largest number of people killed in an airplane also lags just a few years behind the capacity of the largest airplane in service. Ditto ships. People are more afraid of events that kill lots of people at once, than of events that kills small numbers of people frequently.

Coal kills lots of people, but rarely kills as many in one incident as Cherynoble did. Likewise car accidents kill lots of people, but rarely in one incident.

People, maybe down to a hard wiring point, tend to evaluate danger in inaccurate ways such as maximum rather than average number of people killed.

 

[Moonbear]

HOWEVER, thermal pollution of a lake or river is a problem regardless of the primary source of heat, be it fossil, e.g. coal, oil or gas, or nuclear. So, i.e. it is not a problem exclusive to nuclear energy.

Okay, I guess I only heard of it in the context of nuclear power plants because it was something new that changed a river in my lifetime, and affected people I know, so I actually heard the stories about it. And from yours and Morbius' posts, it sounds like nuclear plants have actually found other ways to deal with it, whereas fossil fuel plants haven't. I'm not crazy enough to think there is any way to provide all the energy we demand without some environmental impact, I just like being aware of what that impact is.

 

[Astronuc]

Morbius brought up a good point.

Coal and oil plants can obtain efficiencies of up to 40% with Rankine cycle, because they can operate with superheated steam at higher temperatures and pressures. The temperatures and pressure are restricted in nuclear plants primarily for 'safety' reasons.

On the other hand, high temperature gas cooled reactors were expected to get up to 39-42% thermal efficiency. Four plants representing 8 units were planned, but none built, due to the collapse of the nuclear industry - post TMI. I say collapse, because according to the original plans of the industry, over 200 nuclear units had been planned for the US market prior to 1979. Orders were quickly canceled in the wake of TMI-2's accident.

Furthermore, combined cycle plants based on aero-derivative gas turbines (based on jet engines) which dump their waste heat into steam cycle can get up to 60-62% thermal efficiency, so they waste only 38-40% of the heat. These plants generally tend to be peaking units and use natural gas which has become more expensive as demand for it increases.

 

[hitssquad]

it sounds like nuclear plants have actually found other ways to deal with it, whereas fossil fuel plants haven't.

No. Both coal power plants and nuclear power plants can use cooling towers. This is the Ferrybridge (coal) Power Station:
http://www.freefoto.com/browse.jsp?id=13-32-0

As you can see, it is equipped with cooling towers.

 

[Moonbear]

No. Both coal power plants and nuclear power plants can use cooling towers. This is the Ferrybridge (coal) Power Station:
http://www.freefoto.com/browse.jsp?id=13-32-0

As you can see, it is equipped with cooling towers.

Thanks for clarifying that point.

 

[Morbius]

Coal kills lots of people, but rarely kills as many in one incident as Cherynoble did. Likewise car accidents kill lots of people, but rarely in one incident.

ohwilleke,

A single airliner crash kills more people than Chernobyl did.

Dr. Gregory Greenman
Physicist

 

[ohwilleke]

ohwilleke,

A single airliner crash kills more people than Chernobyl did.

Dr. Gregory Greenman
Physicist

It depends on how you count. If you count only the 31 people who died in the first few weeks, and you have a pretty large airliner, yes. If you make some reasonable inferences about life time effects from the pollution impact of the disaster, I think this is a hard proposition to support.

It noted also that in addition to the immediate deaths from radiation about 209 people suffered acute radiation syndrome. http://www.nea.fr/html/rp/chernobyl/c05.html This will likely have a strong long term impact on these acutely affected individuals. Eleven of them have died since then.

The OECD report ( www.nea.fr/html/rp/chernobyl/welcome.html[/url] )notes the increase in cancer incidence among people who lived in the former Soviet Union (i.e. fairly close to the site) a group of people who numbered in the hundreds of thousands in the "highly contaminated territories." Overall its estimate of deaths from late cancer effects, as well as more immediate effects, is in the vincinity of 700-900 deaths at the conservative end of the scale, with non-fatal illnesses affecting thousands of people, and hundreds of thousands of people experiencing forced relocation and/or serious psychological traumas. [url]http://www.nea.fr/html/rp/chernobyl/c05.html[/URL]

A UN report ( [PLAIN]www.chernobyl.info/resources/undpReport10_2_02.pdf[/URL] ) puts the increase in thyroid cancer deaths at about 2,000 and estimates that could grow to 8,000-10,000, while stating that there is not a consensus on the cancer impact in other types of cancers.

The Chernobyl accident will probably end up killing more people than the worst ever airplane crash (a collision of two 747s on a runway on March 27, 1977 in the Canary Islands that killed 583 people), and certainly more than an average one which kills 75-230 people, and will have an overall impact many times as severe. It isn't killing tens of thousands of people, but its significant health and human impact shouldn't be understated either. The only single incident industrial accident in recent history which comes close in terms of mortality and overall impact is the worse Bhopal chemical plant disaster in India.

By comparison, the worst ever mine disaster in the U.S. (in Monongah, West Virginia on December 6, 1907) killed 361 people. In direct deaths an oil pipeline explosion in Nigeria on October 17, 1998 that killed more than 700, a gas pipeline explosion in Ufa, Asha, USSR on June 3, 1989 that killed more than 650 people, the Salang Tunnel explosion in Afghanistan on November 2, 1982 that killed more than 1,000, an accidental dynamite exposion in Cali, Columbia on August 7, 1956 that killed 1,100 people, and an explosion in the Bombay, India harbor on April 14, 1944 that killed 700 people, come close, but none of these accidents had comparable collateral effects.

Chernobyl will end up killing as many people as some of the worst industrial accidents in history, while having the non-deadly environmental impacts of a major oil spill.

The fact that there have been dozens of major oil spills and numerous major industrial accidents in the history of the fossil fuel industry, at gas pipelines, oil pipelines, coal mines and more, still supports the conclusion that nuclear energy is safer by comparison. But, to reduce the harm caused by Chernobyl to the 31 people who died in short order, is to drastically understate the mortality effects of that disaster.

 

[russ_watters]

A UN report ( www.chernobyl.info/resources/undpReport10_2_02.pdf[/URL] ) puts the increase in thyroid cancer deaths at about 2,000 and estimates that could grow to 8,000-10,000, while stating that there is not a consensus on the cancer impact in other types of cancers.[/QUOTE] The report (page 52) says 6-8,000 [b]cases[/b], not deaths. Thyroid cancer has a relatively low fatality rate (not sure what it is in the former eastern bloc countries and didn't see it in the report). And for the sake of comparison to the US (for assessing the risk to us), the fatality rate is even lower here (roughly 5%) because of better healthcare and in addition getting the cancer in the first place can be prevented by simple things such as iodized salt.

Frankly, I consider long-term death projections to be a little bit sketchy though.

 

[Morbius]

I

The fact that there have been dozens of major oil spills and numerous major industrial accidents in the history of the fossil fuel industry, at gas pipelines, oil pipelines, coal mines and more, still supports the conclusion that nuclear energy is safer by comparison. But, to reduce the harm caused by Chernobyl to the 31 people who died in short order, is to drastically understate the mortality effects of that disaster.

ohwilleke,

I'm not claiming the 31 short-term fatalities as the total number. [ In
fact, I didn't even quote a number ].

I'm referring to a fairly recent report from the National Academies.
Since it has been nearly 3 decades since the accident - practically all
the cancers and other latent effects will have already manifested
themselves. Although I can't recall the specific numbers at present;
they were less than what one would expect from a single serious
airline accident.

Additionally, Chernobyl is an anomally - not characteristic at all of
the experience of nuclear power in this nation and others.

Nobody is contemplating building a reactor like Chernobyl that is
unstable. Nobody is contemplating performing an ill-designed
experiment on the reactor. Nobody is contemplating disabling all
the safety systems when performing such an experiment.

Since nobody is contemplating doing anything remotely like the
Chernobyl scenario - it will continue to be an anomally.

Dr. Gregory Greenman
Physicist

 

[theCandyman]

I just had a lecture about Chernobyl today. I am glad, for once I know what you are discussing. And are they any records to compare cancer patients before the accident to afterward?

 

[hitssquad]

The Chernobyl accident [...] isn't killing tens of thousands of people

--
The best judgment of the International Commission on Radiation Protection (ICRP) is that even for low-level radiation, deaths due to cancer occur at a rate of 0.04 per person-sievert (400 per million person-rem). There is little dispute over the collective exposure to the population of the European community and the (former) USSR as 600,000 person-Sv. The cancer deaths are thus likely to be 24,000 [...]
--
http://www.fas.org/rlg/ljan99.html

 

[Morbius]

--
The best judgment of the International Commission on Radiation Protection (ICRP) is that even for low-level radiation, deaths due to cancer occur at a rate of 0.04 per person-sievert (400 per million person-rem). There is little dispute over the collective exposure to the population of the European community and the (former) USSR as 600,000 person-Sv. The cancer deaths are thus likely to be 24,000 [...]

hitssquad,

Such predictions are based on the old linear no-threshold extrapolation.

However, more recent research indicates that this model grossly over-
predicts radiation mortality.

Because the human body has a radiation-damage repair mechanism -
the no-threshold assumption is very questionable. At low-level doses,
the body repairs the damage. In fact, low-level doses of radiation
actually appear to be protective - as they stimulate the cellular
radiation response.

The radiation-damage repair mechanism is looking more and more
like the body's immune system. Courtesy of LLNL:

http://www.llnl.gov/str/JulAug03/Wyrobek.html

Dr. Gregory Greenman
Physicist

 

[brewnog]

Three cheers for Ferrybridge! Hip hip...?

 

[Moonbear]

The report (page 52) says 6-8,000 cases, not deaths. Thyroid cancer has a relatively low fatality rate (not sure what it is in the former eastern bloc countries and didn't see it in the report). And for the sake of comparison to the US (for assessing the risk to us), the fatality rate is even lower here (roughly 5%) because of better healthcare and in addition getting the cancer in the first place can be prevented by simple things such as iodized salt.

Frankly, I consider long-term death projections to be a little bit sketchy though.

The reason the thyroid is a target organ is that it rapidly concentrates iodine (thyroid hormones contain iodide). If you ingest cold iodine at the time of exposure, you can compete out the radioactive iodine. Also, while it's far more convenient to have your thyroid, you can survive without it as long as you supplement the hormones it produces, which are readily available and not that expensive. The thyroid is also easily accessible for removal should it become cancerous. I wouldn't expect mortality rates to be very high unless the cancer is undetected until it metastasizes.

*This has been a message from the biology sponsor; I now return you to your regularly scheduled engineering discussion.*

 

[1123581321]

First of all, nuclear fission is very safe(if you are talking about an American reactor) Nuclear fission and fusion aren't very efficent, but they are a lot better than that coal crap. The problem is, uneducated hippies, who whine and (profane word) about finding a clean form of energy ignore nuclear because the news told them it is dangerous. Meanwhile, oil/coal barrons bribe scientists to slow production on nuclear/hydrogen fuel cell so they can make more money. (all the while i go off topic because i am into politics) There is nuclear waste from uranium fission, but not hydrogen fusion, only helium. enentually, we will run out of hydrogen, but before we even eat up 1% of the world's hydrogen, a new energy source will be found (perhas matter/antimatter)

 

[faust9]

I love these discussion. I used to wear a TLD because I worked at a nuc plant. I decided to take a TLD on a flight just to see what kind of exposure I'd get--4 hour flight about 50mR. 1 month of doing primary samples--25mR. Flying was about twice as bad as standing in front of a sample sink. Flying was worse than any single month on the job. With the reactor shut down I still received about 5mR. I worked at an OEM manufacturer that used x-rays to verify foil runs on circuit boards. I got about 10-20mR every quarter there (again as read from a TLD). The added exposure from living close to a nuclear power plant is effectively zero. Even with minor accidents the exposure is still zero.

I will never again work in a plant(to much paperwork) but I don't fear them. They are not evil. US plants do not spew and belch radiation into the atmosphere. Heck, the worse US accident resulted in TMI resulted in a miniscule 1mR

"Health Effects

Detailed studies of the radiological consequences of the accident have been conducted by the NRC, the Environmental Protection Agency, the Department of Health, Education and Welfare (now Health and Human Services), the Department of Energy, and the State of Pennsylvania. Several independent studies have also been conducted. Estimates are that the average dose to about 2 million people in the area was only about 1 millirem. To put this into context, exposure from a full set of chest x-rays is about 6 millirem. Compared to the natural radioactive background dose of about 100-125 millirem per year for the area, the collective dose to the community from the accident was very small. The maximum dose to a person at the site boundary would have been less than 100 millirem.

In the months following the accident, although questions were raised about possible adverse effects from radiation on human, animal, and plant life in the TMI area, none could be directly correlated to the accident. Thousands of environmental samples of air, water, milk, vegetation, soil, and foodstuffs were collected by various groups monitoring the area. Very low levels of radionuclides could be attributed to releases from the accident. However, comprehensive investigations and assessments by several well-respected organizations have concluded that in spite of serious damage to the reactor, most of the radiation was contained and that the actual release had negligible effects on the physical health of individuals or the environment."

http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/doc-collections/fact-sheets/3mile-isle.html

We need more nuclear power plants. Build them breathe the fresh air. Love them.

 

[Morbius]

There is nuclear waste from uranium fission, but not hydrogen fusion, only helium.

1,2,3...

That's not quite correct. There is waste from nuclear fusion. The primary
reaction being considered is "D-T" fusion:

D + T --> He4 + n + 17.6 MeV

The byproducts of the reaction are Helium-4 which is not radioactive
and a 14.1 MeV neutron. However, that 14.1 MeV neutron is going to
make whatever it hits next radioactive, in all probability. Therefore,
you do have to dispose of the "first wall" as radioactive waste.

enentually, we will run out of hydrogen, but before we even eat up 1% of the world's hydrogen, a new energy source will be found (perhas matter/antimatter)

I wouldn't put much hope in matter/antimatter unless we find someplace
in space where we can mine anti-matter.

One can always make anti-matter - but where do you get the energy to
do that?

It's just like using hydrogen as a chemical fuel. We don't have much in
the way of a supply of hydrogen gas - only the hydrogen in water. But
water is hydrogen "ash" - it's hydrogen that has already been burned -
so there's no energy source there.

One can make hydrogen gas by electrolyzing water - but that takes
energy to do that - the same energy one gets when one burns the
resulting hydrogen. So if one already has the energy, one could just
use it instead of making hydrogen.

Making hydrogen only makes sense as an energy storage technique. One
could use nuclear power plants to cleanly make the energy to electrolyze
the hydrogen - which then could be burned in cars, airliners, and other
vehicles.

That would be a way to power our cars, airliners, etc on nuclear power
when they are too small to carry a reactor around.

Dr. Gregory Greenman
Physicist