Get this in your brain. 10, 000 years before spent nuclear fuel is

[RegieRocker]

safe. All other energy sources are like spitballs when compared to extremely dangerous nuclear (bomb) electricity. No other energy source has ever polluted any area for 10,000 years period. So don't freakin ruin areas of the planet for 10, 000 years for your selfish needs.

[TheWraith]

1. No, that's not true.

For starters, we have no way to predict the toxic lifespan of coal sludge and mercury, whether that's 100 years or 100,000.

Second, spent fuel reprocessing, the way they do in Europe, turns spent fuel rods back into new usable fuel, industrially and medically useful isotopes, and a much lesser volume of "waste" which burns out a lot faster than 10,000 years.

[Cleita]

4. I've read otherwise. So if you have any sources

for your statements or links, they would be appreciated.

[kristopher]

85. You should request peer reviewed proof of such assertions.

The nuclear supporters are well organized and the industry gives them a huge amount of support. This means that it is EASY for them go get references from academic, peer reviewed papers (if they exist) simply by visiting one of the dozens of websites organized by the industry and dedicated to nuclear PR. If they have such evidence, trust me, they want to get it into as many hands as they can. NEVER accept a claim by this industry that has not been confirmed with peer review.

Just a word to the wise.

[Cleita]

118. No problem.

Once they reveal their sources, it's easier to trace the astroturf and debunk it.

[joeybee12]

132. Don't hold your breath on getting that...hit and run with false information at work there...nt

[RegieRocker]

10. Oh don't hide from the truth. Reprocessing produces high level

waste that is dangerous for 250, 000 years. Now guess why the government stopped reprocessing? Get your facts straight.

[GoCubsGo]

122. The government hasn't stopped reprocessing

They're building a mixed oxides reactor down the road from me on the Savannah River Site to reprocess weapons-grade plutonium into fuel for nuclear power generation.

[RegieRocker]

144. If they are reprocessing spent nuclear reactor fuel then why are

they storing it in pools?

[defendandprotect]

18. Plutonium ... ??? Want to discuss that -- ?? Radiation from these plants reaches CA tomorrow -- !!

If the nuclear industry isn't finished this week -- it will only be because of

the corruption and criminal nature of our government today -- and fascism.

[Codeine]

23. Lol!

Or it could be because many intelligent people still support it. Not everything is fascism.

[RegieRocker]

50. And those that supported it in Japan were smart?

You have to be smart to know one.

[EOTE]

141. There are those who support air travel as well.

Fucking idiots.

[marions ghost]

124. intelligent people

often wrong. :shrug:

[dbackjon]

38. Radiation so low that it will be less effect than a day at the beach

False hysterics are bad for the country

[defendandprotect]

65. If you're trying to say that nuclear leakage hasn't long been effecting the health

of Americans then you're being disingenuous --

I'm sure the Japanese right now consider the radiation levels "false hysterics" -- !!!

Epecially courtesy of fascist managment they've upped the allowage dosage 2.5 X just

for this event!!


:rofl:

[kristopher]

86. +1

[Petrushka]

101. Wind shift at reactor site --->

http://www.accuweather.com/blogs/news/story/47125/wind-shift-for-japan-reactor-s.asp

[grahamhgreen]

120. Half-life of Plutonium is 20,000-100,000 years. That's when it's half as deadly.

[defendandprotect]

134. Right -- Plutonium ... a threat from at least one of the plants = toxic 240,000 years!!

[dbackjon]

2. I think mountain top removal will last far longer than 10,000 years

[RegieRocker]

13. Roflmao so during that 10, 000 years would it kill you to visit the removed

mountain top site.

[Zoeisright]

83. [phone]

Exactly.

[Zanzoobar]

88. The issue with mountaintop removal is not simply esthetic

It's ridiculous to pose it as such. There are environmental, political, economic, and social ramifications.

To pass it over as just another eyesore is blindingly ignorant.

[cemaphonic]

102. It wouldn't kill you to visit Chernobyl *now*

They operate tours there. You wouldn't want to hang out very long for sure, but mountaintop removal leaves an awful lot of long-term toxic shit around the local environment as well.

[Donnachaidh]

127. let's classify this with the *coal is more dangerous* meme my puke rep used

I guess then you'll have no problem sitting on that nuclear fuel? Because that mountaintop removal won't be attacking your bones with radiation -- I'll sit there.

:rofl: :rofl:

[dbackjon]

131. You are assuming that nuke power will make your house unihabitable

which is an assine assumption.

[Donnachaidh]

135. the only thing assinine is your comparing a mountaintop to radiation

And seeing as I was raised by a man who had a career in nuclear power I strongly suspect my opinions are a bit more reality-based. And I can guarantee mine weren't pulled from a deep dark orifice, unlike some. :eyes:

[dbackjon]

137. The OP stated that nuclear power is the only energy

That would ruin an area for 10K years. WRONG...


And I know a little bit about the subject - studied Nuclear Engineering

[RegieRocker]

153. Give the example of an area that has become inhabitable for 10, 000

years from another energy source other than nuclear.

[SidDithers]

3. What is" nuclear (bomb) electricity"?...nt

Sid

[Codeine]

6. I believe the kids are calling that "weak sauce." nt

[SidDithers]

12. ...

:thumbsup:

Sid

[RegieRocker]

15. Childish attempt at humor and a lame question.

[Codeine]

So what is "bomb electricity" then? nt

[RegieRocker]

52. When a nuclear reactor fails and radiation is emitted.

Maybe it's hard for you to understand but with a nuclear bomb there are more effects than a explosion. Can you say fallout?

[SidDithers]

21. OK, then. Serious question...

What is "nuclear (bomb) electricity"?

Sid

[RegieRocker]

51. Serious answer. Fallout

[Codeine]

5. Evolving technology is likely to turn that waste into viable fuel.

And comparing nuclear energy to nuclear bombs is silly.

[Wilms]

8. That would be great.

But evolving tech was going to offer a long-term storage solution. We're still waiting.

[Codeine]

9. We had a great one.

The ninnies made us abandon it.

[kristopher]

89. The actual size of the issue vs nuclear industry propaganda.

I know that after you read this you are going to kick yourself for being taken in by the nuclear industry's facile talking points such as the one you recited.

From a presentation by John Holdren.

The nuclear option: size of the challenges

• If world electricity demand grows 2% /year until 2050 and nuclear share of electricity supply is to rise from 1/6 to 1/3...
–nuclear capacity would have to grow from 350 GWe in 2000 to 1700 GWe in 2050;
– this means 1,700 reactors of 1,000 MWe each.

• If these were light-water reactors on the once-through fuel cycle...
---–enrichment of their fuel will require ~250 million Separative Work Units (SWU);
---–diversion of 0.1% of this enrichment to production of HEU from natural uranium would make ~20 gun-type or ~80 implosion-type bombs.

• If half the reactors were recycling their plutonium...
---–the associated flow of separated, directly weapon - usable plutonium would be 170,000 kg per year;
---–diversion of 0.1% of this quantity would make ~30 implosion-type bombs.

• Spent-fuel production in the once-through case would be...
---–34,000 tonnes/yr, a Yucca Mountain every two years.

Mitigation of Human-Caused Climate Change
John P. Holdren

Repeating that conclusion: Expanding nuclear enough to take a modest bite out of the climate problem is conceivable, *but* doing so will depend on greatly increased seriousness in addressing the waste-management & proliferation challenges.

What does he say about renewables?

The renewable option: Is it real?

SUNLIGHT: 100,000 TW reaches Earth’s surface (100,000 TWy/year = 3.15 million EJ/yr), 30% on land.
Thus 1% of the land area receives 300 TWy/yr, so converting this to usable forms at 10% efficiency would yield 30 TWy/yr, about twice civilization’s rate of energy use in 2004.

WIND: Solar energy flowing into the wind is ~2,000 TW.
Wind power estimated to be harvestable from windy sites covering 2% of Earth’s land surface is about twice world electricity generation in 2004.

BIOMASS: Solar energy is stored by photosynthesis on land at a rate of about 60 TW.
Energy crops at twice the average terrestrial photosynthetic yield would give 12 TW from 10% of land area (equal to what’s now used for agriculture).
Converted to liquid biofuels at 50% efficiency, this would be 6 TWy/yr, more than world oil use in 2004.

Renewable energy potential is immense. Questions are what it will cost & how much society wants to pay for environmental & security advantages.

Mitigation of Human-Caused Climate Change
John P. Holdren

John P. Holdren is advisor to President Barack Obama for Science and Technology,
Director of the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy, and
Co-Chair of the President’s Council of Advisors on Science and Technology...

Holdren was previously the Teresa and John Heinz Professor of Environmental Policy at the Kennedy School of Government at Harvard University,
director of the Science, Technology, and Public Policy Program at the School's Belfer Center for Science and International Affairs, and
Director of the Woods Hole Research Center.<2>

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Holdren

[Petrushka]

104. Waste proliferation & management? Where can I find Mr. Holdren's presentation in its entirety?

I'm interested in what he had to say (if anything) about coal-fired power plants and the waste they produce---in addition to the waste produced in the coal-mining and coal preparation process.

Thank you!

[kristopher]

105. Why would he talk about that when the presentation was about replacements for coal?

www.un.org/esa/sustdev/csd/csd14/lc/presentation/holdren.pdf

[Petrushka]

108. And why would you NOT make that fact known BEFORE I asked the question?

Thanks for the link. I've bookmarked it to read later. It's after 7 a.m. and I've been up all night!

[Statistical]

11. Finland has built a deep geological repository.

The tech exists. The political will is another thing.

[Wilms]

14. Sounds like they found a sweet spot?

Yucca not so much.

[texastoast]

26. How does that work with water tables?

And who is in charge seven generations from now?

[Statistical]

42. Deep Geological Repository is way below water tables.

Finland site is 400m below ground in solid granite. It also happens to be at their nuclear reactor site (they were smart and allocated a large block of land around the reactor when first built). This helps with the NIMBY issue.

[texastoast]

157. Some artesian wells are well over 2000 feet

I seem to recall some really deep ones in Australia.

And I don't like the looks of those pipes, having grown up around welders who can't get good steel anymore. What are they made of? So far, you haven't helped with the NIMBY issue (it's more of a NOMP issue, meaning not on my planet) or the seventh generation thing.

[kristopher]

87. You know better than that.

[RegieRocker]

19. Fairy tales for children

[Electric Monk]

29. What did the fairy take for the children?

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/Regie

[gkhouston]

49. Darn. I would have guessed socks. n/t

[rucky]

162. oops. misread.

nevermind.

[JBoy]

7. What's "bomb electricity"?

[RegieRocker]

17. Japan won't fix their nuclear plants and your comprehension can not

either.

[petronius]

24. I've got to assume that it's something you really don't want to get in your brain

:shrug:

[Codeine]

25. I keep mine safe in TetraPaks. nt

[NoTimeToulouse]

16. That sounds like a lowball number. Link?

[RegieRocker]

22. Try the golf course for links. You're on a computer aren't you?

Hundreds of google links all for your liking. It's not like it is a unusual topic or a secret.

[NoTimeToulouse]

28. If you are going to make a statment then please be so kind

as to back it up with substance.

[NoTimeToulouse]

30. Oh, look. I did your homework.

http://www.utpb.edu/research-grants/ht3r/health-safety/radiation-primer/half-life/

Snip: Most nuclear fuel consists of material with a very long half-life, such as uranium-235 (over seven hundred million years).

[SidDithers]

37. The stuff you really need to be careful of is gold-197...

it has a half life of infinity.

Sid

[NoTimeToulouse]

41. If activated it would certainly rock my world.

[RegieRocker]

45. Not hardly. Here you go all for all the rest who can't seem to

search.

Of particular concern in nuclear waste management are two long-lived fission products, Tc-99 (half-life 220,000 years) and I-129 (half-life 17 million years), which dominate spent fuel radioactivity after a few thousand years. The most troublesome transuranic elements in spent fuel are Np-237 (half-life two million years) and Pu-239 (half life 24,000 years).<20> Nuclear waste requires sophisticated treatment and management to successfully isolate it from interacting with the biosphere. This usually necessitates treatment, followed by a long-term management strategy involving storage, disposal or transformation of the waste into a non-toxic form.<21> Governments around the world are considering a range of waste management and disposal options, though there has been limited progress toward long-term waste management solutions

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radioactive_waste

[NoTimeToulouse]

48. The first two on your list negate your original post.

Goodnight.

Oh, Thus endeth the lesson.

[RegieRocker]

54. No that would be you. It is your bedtime. Nighty night.

[NoTimeToulouse]

59. You do understand that the first two mentioned on your list are

into the millions and hundreds of thousands of years? Right?

On edit: Of particular concern in nuclear waste management are two long-lived fission products, Tc-99 (half-life 220,000 years) and I-129 (half-life 17 million years)...

[RegieRocker]

60. Yes I do. I was being kind. No energy source has the polluting

staying power of nuclear.

[NoTimeToulouse]

61. Then you should edit your OP so as not to continue in error.

[Petrushka]

67. Figures from 1986 WHO Chernobyl accident report

Listed below are a few of the isotopes that are created in the nuclear cycle and discharged into the environment. In general both beta and gamma radiation affect the skin and gamma radiation also affects the reproductive organs:

isotope.................. Radiation...........Half-life.............. Organs affected

Americium-241....... alpha................433 years......... blood and bones
Barium-140.............beta & gamma.....13 days.......... bones, reproductive organs
Caesium-137...........beta & gamma.....30 years......... muscle, reproductive organs
Carbon-14...............beta................5600 years..........bones
Cobalt-60................beta& gamma........5 years.........reproductive organs
Iodine 131............. beta & gamma........8 days...........reproductive organs, thyroid
Krypton-95............ beta & gamma.......10 years........ lungs
Phosphorus-32........beta......................14 days......... bones
Plutonium-239.........alpha............ 24,000 years....blood, bones, lungs, reproductive organs
Plutonium 240.........alpha................ 6600 years.........blood and bones
Plutonium-210.........alpha...................138 days......... spleen
Potassium-42..........beta & gamma........12 hours........muscle, reproductive organs
Promethium-137.....beta........................ 2 years........bones
Radium-266...........alpha...................1620 years....... bones
Radon-222.............alpha.................... 3.8 days..........lungs
Ruthenium-106.......beta & gamma..........1 year...........reproductive organs
Strontium-90......... beta...................... 28 years......... bones

Sources: World Health Organisation's Chernobyl Reactor Accident Report, 6 May 1986; Cumbrians Opposed to a Radioactive Environment.
_________________

[NoTimeToulouse]

77. And what of the Fukashima reactors?

Also what you are listing are "isotopes that are created in the nuclear cycle and discharged into the environment."

That is a far cry from the physical rods that are in the reactor cores. That stuff doesn't go away easily.

[Petrushka]

109. We'll probably know . . . sooner or later. (eom)

[hobbit709]

20. If you can't tell the difference between a bomb and electricity.

Can you explain the math behind nuclear decay?

[RegieRocker]

27. If you can't read and comprehend what is the point?

Your lame attempt of acting like you don't know what (bomb) implied makes you look well you know. Thats right maybe you don't.

[hobbit709]

31. I can read and comprehend quite well.

I also know a bit more about radioactive decay than most people.
And a reactor is not a bomb no matter what you think. you can have a chemical or steam explosion-which is what happened but it was NOT a nuclear bomb.

[RegieRocker]

40. Fallout

[kristopher]

95. Apparently you still have some challeges with language

There is this thing called a metaphor....

Metaphor is the concept of understanding one thing in terms of another. A metaphor is a figure of speech that constructs an analogy between two things or ideas; the analogy is conveyed by the use of a metaphorical word in place of some other word. For example: "Her eyes were glistening jewels".
wiki

Given that we are all living through a horrible experience that may well have an even more horrific outcome, it is natural for people to express themselves in original ways based on the experience underway.

It seems to me that anyone that didn't grasp the heart of that expression is deserving of our deepest sympathy. Of course, your other comments push back against that inclination since it indicates that your capacity for empathy is very restricted and is more likely the root of your ankle-biting.

It's just hard to feel sympathy for someone lacking empathy.

[RegieRocker]

139. The persons who didn't grasp I was paitient with, on the other hand

I know b.s. when I see it most of the time. However I am not faultless.

[kristopher]

148. It was completely clear.

A metaphor is supposed to be evocative and your construction accomplished that in a most excellent manner.

[RegieRocker]

154. Big difference between "what do you mean" and "what is “. That is what is

clear.

[PDJane]

32. There is no safe level of radiation. Period.

It's time to understand this.

It's long past time for the US to stop spreading the stuff around the planet.

[Codeine]

33. Of course there's a safe level of radiation.

Radiation hits us every day. The universe bathes in it.

And we aren't spreading it; people all over the world have been building nuclear plants for a long time.

[PDJane]

39. No one else uses DU munitions.

And just becase radiation hits us every day doesn't mean that any added radiation will not increase mortality.

And yes, the US has known since the Nevada tests that depleted uranium will make an area unsafe, increasing birth defects, cancers, and rare illnesses.

[Codeine]

44. The Russians have used DU tanks rounds for over 30 years.

115mm and 125mm guns on a variety of tank platforms.

A number of countries use DU rounds, actually -- the U.S., the UK, France, Russia, China, India, Turkey, Saudi Arabia, Israel, Bahrain, Egypt, Kuwait, Pakistan, Thailand, Iraq and Taiwan. It's manufactured in 18 different nations.

[PDJane]

47. having those rounds

doesn't mean they use them.....and not with the reglarity of the US. Nor does it make it right or harmless.

[Codeine]

57. Some of those nations had tanks in both Gulf Wars.

Clearly it's not just the US spreading it. And as the issue at hand is a Japanese nuclear power plant rather than depleted uranium rounds your whole premise is not only factually incorrect it's also wildly off topic.

[distantearlywarning]

53. I had a pre-melanoma removed last year.

That happened because of the radiation I am exposed to every time I step out of my house, which emanates from that great big power plant in the sky. NO amount of radiation is "safe". :-(

[Name removed]

62. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[hunter]

34. Humans are worse than nuclear waste...

Mass extinction events caused by nuclear waste = 0

Mass extinction events caused by humans = 1

Of all the pollutants dumped by human society greenhouse gases like carbon dioxide will probably have the deadliest consequences, even within our own population.

If we keep it up we may exceed the damage done by giant rocks hitting the earth.


Artist's impression of a major impact event.
The collision between Earth and an asteroid
a few kilometers in diameter may release as
much energy as several million nuclear weapons
detonating simultaneously.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Impact_event
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Extinction_event

Fossil fuels are currently feeding the exponential growth of earth's human population. It won't last. We are biological beings and population spikes such as we are experiencing never end well.

This doesn't mean we can neglect the cleanup of nuclear messes we have already made, but we have plenty of problems of our own making that are much worse.

[yawnmaster]

156. non-human nature is far worse than humans. Mass extinctions not caused by man = many. eom

[jberryhill]

35. Mercury is toxic forever

As are many of the cancer causing chemicals used in the production of solar cells.

[Zorra]

36. Even when they are dying from radiation poisoning, they'll still defend nuclear

energy.

Some people simply can't ever admit they are wrong.

[dbackjon]

43. Who is dying from Radiation poisoning?

The level of hysterics and misrepresentation of simple reality is frightening here.

[RegieRocker]

46. The amount of ostriches is frightening.

[hobbit709]

116. So is the number of Chicken Littles.

[RegieRocker]

145. So you think the Japanese who left the area are chicken littles?

If not then your labeling people chicken littles is absurd. We don't want this crap to happen in our neighborhood, get it?

[hobbit709]

155. I mean people you who are screaming "The sky is falling"

Without understanding the first thing about radioactive elements.

[RegieRocker]

158. You mean people who are afraid of radiation blowing to the USA?

[Zorra]

70. That was a sarcastic comment meaning that even if some supporters

of nuclear energy at DU were exposed to lethal doses of radiation from a nuclear catastrophe and were dying from radiation poisoning they would still be insisting that nuclear energy was safe while on their way to the hospice ward.

If people can't get a clue from what just happened in Japan, it's hopeless.
:banghead:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chernobyl_disaster_effects

[dbackjon]

138. And some people have no clue that this is no Chernobyl

[Arugula Latte]

142. You're right. This could wind up being far worse than Chernobyl.

[kristopher]

98. For some people

Admitting they are wrong can have a heavy financial penalty attached.

[BrightKnight]

55. Scientific American: "Coal Ash Is More Radioactive than Nuclear Waste"

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=coal-ash-is-more-radioactive-than-nuclear-waste

[dpibel]

82. Gotta Read to the End

Those headlines'll getcha every time.

It's a facially absurd proposition, and says something about who's naive.

Here's the editor's note at the end of the article:

*Editor's Note (posted 12/30/08): In response to some concerns raised by readers, a change has been made to this story. The sentence marked with an asterisk was changed from "In fact, fly ash—a by-product from burning coal for power—and other coal waste contains up to 100 times more radiation than nuclear waste" to "In fact, the fly ash emitted by a power plant—a by-product from burning coal for electricity—carries into the surrounding environment 100 times more radiation than a nuclear power plant producing the same amount of energy." Our source for this statistic is Dana Christensen, an associate lab director for energy and engineering at Oak Ridge National Laboratory as well as 1978 paper in Science authored by J.P. McBride and colleagues, also of ORNL

So, as the comments to this article point out, it's making the entirely unremarkable argument that a properly operating coal plant is dirty compared to a properly operating nuke.

It says nothing at all about either a malfunctioning nuke or nuclear waste.

Next case.

[Petrushka]

94. "Gotta Read to the End."??? But, you forgot the LAST sentence where "nuclear waste" is mentioned.

"*Editor's Note (posted 12/30/08): In response to some concerns raised by readers, a change has been made to this story. The sentence marked with an asterisk was changed from "In fact, fly ash—a by-product from burning coal for power—and other coal waste contains up to 100 times more radiation than nuclear waste" to "In fact, the fly ash emitted by a power plant—a by-product from burning coal for electricity—carries into the surrounding environment 100 times more radiation than a nuclear power plant producing the same amount of energy." Our source for this statistic is Dana Christensen, an associate lab director for energy and engineering at Oak Ridge National Laboratory as well as 1978 paper in Science authored by J.P. McBride and colleagues, also of ORNL.

"As a general clarification, ounce for ounce, coal ash released from a power plant delivers more radiation than nuclear waste shielded via water or dry cask storage."

[kristopher]

99. That would be in support of Nuclear Industry Lie #1 - nuclear power is clean

The article is an exercise in cherry picked information that, while technically accurate, does nothing to support the idea that nuclear power is either clean or desirable.

Would you point to the part of McBrides's comparison where the effects of radioactivity from the full fuel cycle of nuclear power and coal are compared? Where is the accounting on the nuclear side of the emissions from large scale accidents such as Chernobyl, TMI, the various smaller incidents that have occurred and now Fukushima? How many orders of magnitude larger are those events than the parameters used by McBride?

There are several other ways to demonstrate that McBride's analysis lacks validity for the purpose it is used, but that really isn't the issue at all since the the problems of cost, proliferation, safety and waste are the ones that cripple the industry's efforts to pilfer the public purse.

[Petrushka]

107. It doesn't take a Nuclear Industry supporter to recognize that nuclear power is cleaner than coal.

In any case, if you're looking for something to "support the idea that nuclear power is either clean or desirable", here's a link you might find as interesting as I did: http://www.russp.org/nucfacts.html


Also: If "...McBride's analysis...isn't really the issue at all since the problems of cost, proliferation, safety and waste are the ones that cripple the industry's efforts to pilfer the public purse.", maybe the nuclear industry should figure out how the coal industry manages to have the public (and private individuals) pay the hidden (and not so hidden) costs of coal mining. Hidden costs? For instance, in my home-county, Marshall County WV, public waterlines are extending from the Ohio River to the Pennsylvania stateline in order to provide water to people whose wells and springs were dewatered when the watertable dropped because of longwall mining's "planned" subsidence.

:shrug:

[kristopher]

110. It isn't coal or nukes, it is nukes or renewables to replace coal

That is just shifting the discussion to Bradford's #5 while ignoring the truth about 3 and 6.

You are going to fail. Nuclear is not going to survive this because renewables are right at the financial finish line.



6 Standard lies of the nuclear industry

1. nuclear power is cheap;
2. learning and new standardized designs solve all past problems;
3. the waste problem is a non-problem, especially if we’d follow the lead of many other nations and “recycle” our spent fuel;
4. climate change makes a renaissance inevitable;
5. there are no other large low-carbon “baseload” alternatives;
6. there’s no particular reason to worry that a rapidly expanding global industry will put nuclear power and weapons technologies in highly unstable nations, often nations with ties to terrorist organizations.

[Petrushka]

114. Until the coal peters out, King Coal will be laughing all the way to the bookie joint. (eom)

[dpibel]

125. Same Thing

Additional weasel words, which say the same thing: As long as everything's under control, coal is dirtier.

It's that part about "shielded via water or dry cask storage."

Just as an experiment, let's imagine two rooms. In one is a pound of fly ash. In the other is a pound of spent nuclear fuel, fresh out of the reactor.

You have to spend a day in one of those rooms.

Which one do you choose?

[kristopher]

149. Best horsepucky shovel I've yet seen.

Short, succinct and unarguable.

Thanks.

[Petrushka]

159. 3 tons of waste per second is generated by a coal-fired plant, amounting to more in a few hours

than the total amount of high-level nuclear waste generated in 40 years. Your multiple-choice game of "imagine this"---"a pound of fly ash"---is, therefore, unrealistic. Playing that game might have appealed to me, however, back in the late 30s or early 40s when "Let's Pretend" was a popular Saturday radio program for the toddler generation.

While I have your attention, however, here's a little more reading matter for your perusal . . . from Some Amazing Facts About Nuclear Power by Bernard L. Cohen**:
_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________


"Oh, but nuclear waste is far more dangerous than coal waste, isn't it? Actually, it isn't. For a given amount of energy produced, coal ash is actually more radioactive than nuclear waste. How can that be? Simple. The quantity of coal ash is literally millions of times greater than the corresponding quantity of nuclear waste, so even though the radioactive intensity of the coal ash is much less, the overall amount of radiation and radioactive matter is greater.

"But nobody worries much about the radioactivity of coal ash because the chemicals in it are far more dangerous. They include several thousand tons per year of mercury and other heavy metals, along with huge amounts of lead, arsenic, and asbestos, for example. Yet even the huge quantities of chemical waste in coal ash are of little concern compared to the gaseous emissions from burning coal, which kill an estimated 10,000 to 50,000 Americans every year, depending on which study you believe. As a point of reference, even the lower estimate approaches the rate at which Americans died in the Viet Nam war, and the higher estimate greatly exceeds it, yet the media rarely report on those deaths.

"So let's get this straight. For a given amount of energy produced, coal waste has more radioactive matter than nuclear waste, yet the radioactivity of coal waste is nowhere near as dangerous as the solid chemical waste, which in turn is nowhere near as dangerous as the gaseous emissions. Are you starting to get the picture yet?

"But even those staggering figures fail to capture the major environmental advantages of nuclear power over coal-fired power. Why? Because the solid and gaseous emissions from coal burning are generated in such a huge quantity that they cannot possibly be contained. They can only be spewed into the atmosphere and dumped into shallow landfills. There is no conceivable way to isolate waste that is generated at the rate of three tons per second. Nuclear waste, on the other hand, is so miniscule in comparison that it can be almost completely isolated from the environment at a very modest cost. And even though that cost has been greatly inflated by the anti-nuclear hysteria, it is still very managable.


**Bernard L. Cohen is Professor-Emeritus of Physics and Astronomy and of Environmental and Occupational Health at University of Pittsburgh. He has authored 6 books, over 300 papers in scientific journals, and about 75 articles in non-technical journals. He has presented invited lectures in 47 U.S. States, 6 Canadian provinces, 7 Japanese prefectures, 6 Australian states and territories, and 24 other countries in Europe, Asia and South America. His awards include the American Physical Society Bonner Prize and the Health Physics Society Distinguished Scientific Achievement Award. He has been elected Chairman of the Division of Nuclear Physics of the American Physical Society, and Chairman of the Division of Environmental Sciences of the American Nuclear Society.


http://www.russp.org/nucfacts.html
____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

And, if you're interested, here's a summary of waste from The Hazards of Nuclear Power by Bernard L. Cohen:



Summary on Waste

The number of deaths per plant-year estimated in the preceding discussion (plus a few others) is summarized in Table 1. Since many people (including myself) feel that it is meaningless to consider effects over many millions of years, a column has also been included summarizing effects realized over the next 500 years. It should be understood that the minus signs on the numbers for radon from nuclear power indicate lives saved rather than lost. Note that there are three types of waste from coal burning, each of which is thousands of times more harmful than the nuclear waste.

Table 1: Deaths per 1,000 MW plant per year of operation due to wastes

Source....................Next 500 years..........Millions of years

Nuclear:
-- high-level waste..........0.0001..................0.02
-- radon emissions..........-0.0650...............-450
-- low-level waste...........0.0001..................0.0004
-- total....................-0.0648...............-450

Coal:
-- air pollution............25......................25
-- radon emissions...........0.11...................30
-- cancer-causing chemicals..0.5....................70
-- total....................25.61..................125

Solar photovoltaics:
-- coal for materials........0.8.....................3.7
-- cadmium sulfide (if used).0.8....................80
-- total.....................1.6....................83.7



http://www.russp.org/nucfacts.html

[defendandprotect]

56. We have to stop dragging electricity across the company to enrich large corps ....

The Enron syndrome of monopoly has to end!!

[Codeine]

58. "Dragging electricity across the company"?

what on earth does that even mean?

[name not needed]

68. Does it involve bomb electricity?

[RegieRocker]

81. No just nuclear (bomb) electricity.

Don't (fallout) of your (high) chair.

[nadinbrzezinski]

63. Careful with the "tone" or you too will develop

a very "loyal" following who are all but kind.

:hug:

[RegieRocker]

71. payback gonna come to them

[Codeine]

73. How so? nt

[Name removed]

80. Deleted message

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Codeine]

76. Nahh. I disagree with him, but he's being far less obnoxious than

some ahem other posters. ;)

[rdking647]

64. ash from coal burning plants

is as radioactive as nuke waste

[Paradoxical]

66. I'm nearly certain this is completely untrue.

[Petrushka]

72. Psst! Don't look now, but . . . --->

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=439&topic_id=658333&mesg_id=658754

[Paradoxical]

79. The comment said "nuke waste" not "nuclear power plants".

There's a huge difference between the two. Ash from coal plants is not as radioactive as spent nuclear fuel assemblies.

[Petrushka]

84. "As a general clarification," the article says, "Ounce for ounce, coal ash released

from a power plant delivers more radiation than nuclear waste shielded by water or day cask storage."




:shrug:

[Electric Monk]

91. The key word there being shielded, of course.

Shielded.

[nadinbrzezinski]

92. Did you miss that part about shielding?

Which for the record right now we are having a slight issue with that.

[Petrushka]

74. Multiplied by 100!

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=439&topic_id=658333&mesg_id=658754

[kristopher]

106. Why are you spreading Nuclear Industry talking points?

The article is an exercise in cherry picked information that, while technically accurate, does nothing to support the idea that nuclear power is either clean or desirable.

Would you point to the part of McBrides's comparison where the effects of radioactivity from the full fuel cycle of nuclear power and coal are compared? Where is the accounting on the nuclear side of the emissions from large scale accidents such as Chernobyl, TMI, the various smaller incidents that have occurred and now Fukushima? How many orders of magnitude larger are those events than the parameters used by McBride?

There are several other ways to demonstrate that McBride's analysis lacks validity for the purpose it is used, but that really isn't the issue at all since the the problems of cost, proliferation, safety and waste are the ones that cripple the industry's efforts to pilfer the public purse.

The 6 Standard lies of the nuclear industry

1. nuclear power is cheap;
2. learning and new standardized designs solve all past problems;
3. the waste problem is a non-problem, especially if we’d follow the lead of many other nations and “recycle” our spent fuel;
4. climate change makes a renaissance inevitable; 5. there are no other large low-carbon “baseload” alternatives;
6. there’s no particular reason to worry that a rapidly expanding global industry will put nuclear power and weapons technologies in highly unstable nations, often nations with ties to terrorist organizations.

From a list originally compiled by former NRC Commissioner Bradford

[Petrushka]

111. Why? Does it bother you?

The Hazards of Nuclear Power

Most Scientists Reject Radiation Phobia


http://www.russp.org/nucpower.htm

[kristopher]

112. Yes it does.

If you think that paper has meaning in the context of current events you are plainly delusional or financially vested in nuclear power.

[Petrushka]

113. I wish!

:spray:

[kristopher]

115. The sheer brazen gall of the nuclear supporters at this time is supercharging

the emotions from this disaster, speeding the industry on to its graveyard.

Good riddance.

I'd be getting drunk too if I were you.

[Petrushka]

117. I drink nothing but water and tea with lemon, thank you! And . . .

I'm not a nuclear supporter; but, I might be persuaded to become one.



Edited to remove comment that could have been considered (**uh**) ad hom and/or flame-bait.

[RegieRocker]

78. Coal ash is NOT more radioactive than nuclear waste

http://www.cejournal.net/?p=410

[rdking647]

130. scientific america december 2007

Over the past few decades, however, a series of studies has called these stereotypes into question. Among the surprising conclusions: the waste produced by coal plants is actually more radioactive than that generated by their nuclear counterparts. In fact, the fly ash emitted by a power plant—a by-product from burning coal for electricity—carries into the surrounding environment 100 times more radiation than a nuclear power plant producing the same amount of energy.



http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=coal-ash-is-more-radioactive-than-nuclear-waste

[RegieRocker]

140. Corporate Science is the truth. Bought and paid for scientists.

[Angry Dragon]

69. +1000

I am reminded of junior high by a lot of the remarks

[RegieRocker]

75. Sad isn't it. As with school mentality they think they are being

clever. Little do they realize what mature people think of them.

[nadinbrzezinski]

90. I have been reminded of JH for the last five days

:-)

How are you?

:hi:

[Electric Monk]

93. They kept it kicked, fwiw. nt

nt

[nadinbrzezinski]

97. Yeah but still

and now they seem to have found fresh meat...

No could not find a tasteful picture of that.

[Angry Dragon]

126. I am surviving .......... each day I wake up and wonder if

the world will end or if the revolution will start

[Electric Monk]

96. Y'know, Regie, instead of thread fail again, this time you succeeded. Congrats.

(bomb) electricity ftw?

Must be a generational thing...

[RegieRocker]

123. One of the nuclear bombs great hazards is fallout. The parenthesis

was a reference to that aspect. I seem to have made some pros and cons unhappy with this post. The fact still remains whether that there is a radiation risk with it. 10, 000 years is too much risk and of course anything more than that isn't less.

[SidDithers]

143. More than 2000 nuclear bombs have been exploded around the world...

how can it be that we're not all dead yet?

Sid

[RegieRocker]

146. Because you weren't down in the hole when it exploded, or left

stranded on the island after the explosion. Roflmao, most of your so called 200 were underground.

[kristopher]

151. Do you understand there are more than 42 million people within 200 miles of that plant?

A plant with a MOX fueled reactor on the verge of total meltdown?

[cherokeeprogressive]

100. I wonder what the half-life of a lantern mantle is...

Damn selfish campers.

[hobbit709]

119. About 14 billion years.for the thorium in them.

[Petrushka]

103. I wonder: How many hollows & streams in Appalachia are filled with coal waste?

"Oh yes, nuclear waste would indeed be "dangerous for hundreds of thousands of years" if we were stupid enough to leave it lying around untreated, but did someone forget to mention that coal ash is dangerous forever? That's right: solid chemical waste never decays. It will be as dangerous in ten million years as it was the day it was generated."

http://www.russp.org/nucfacts.html

[phleshdef]

128. Southern WVa is one of the most cancer ridden places in the country... no nuclear plants anywhere.

Lots and lots of mountain top removal though.

[Petrushka]

160. High cancer rates in the Northern Panhandle of WVa too . . .

3 coal-fired power plants on the Ohio River + fly-ash disposal sites + coal prep-plant waste disposal sites & slurry ponds + innumerable hollows & stream beds filled with 200 years worth of coal mine gob + acid mine drainage from sealed and/or abandoned mines + etc., etc., etc.

[grahamhgreen]

136. I wonder how many hoarders are on the board of directors of both

The nuclear and coal companies?

We have to move to renewable, unlimited energy, not fossil or nukes.

[Petrushka]

150. I wonder how many coal operators have a finger in alternative renewable energy? Fly a false flag?

:shrug:

[pintobean]

121. .

[distantearlywarning]

129. This is your brain on radiation? n/t

[Matariki]

133. How do I turn off signature line images?

Nevermind. Yay to no more giant mouth running through this thread.

[Keith Bee]

147. Who cares about 10,000 years when Jesus will be returning imminently?

:sarcasm:

[RegieRocker]

152. Radiation is Pro Life.

[Petrushka]

161. Pro Bananas, too! Bananas are radioactive enough to set off false alarms in radiation sensors.

Radionuclides in the Body
An important radionuclide that can be found in the human body is potassium-40 (it is also found in soils and rocks, and contributes to the doses considered in the previous section). The human body of a 70 kg man contains about 140 g of potassium, most of which is located in muscle. Of this potassium, about 0.018% is radioactive potassium-40. This corresponds to a mass of potassium-40 of about 0.03 g. It can be shown by calculation that the decay of this potassium-40 produces about 6000 radioactive decays every second, and therefore body tissues will acquire a radiation dose. The dose arising from potassium-40 in the body (and a contribution due to naturally occurring potassium-40 in rocks and soils) is about 0.1 mSv/yr.
http://www.marts100.com/Natural.htm



Potassium-40 is the largest source of natural radioactivity in animals and people. An adult human body contains about 160 grams of potassium, of which a small fraction is potassium-40. From the isotope abundance and half-life it can be calculated that this produces about 300,000 disintegrations per minute, continuously, throughout the life of the body.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Potassium-40



Many foods are naturally radioactive, and bananas are particularly so, due to the radioactive potassium-40, or 40K they contain. Bananas are radioactive enough to regularly cause false alarms on radiation sensors used to detect possible illegal smuggling of nuclear material at U.S. ports.<2> A medium-sized banana contains about 450 mg of potassium.<3> 40K makes up 0.0117% of this, or about 53 μg, which produces 14 radioactive decays per second (dps), or 0.37 nCi of radiation. If the banana is eaten, the dose equivalent is about 0.01 mrem,<1> which is equivalent to 0.1 μSv.<4> The body of a 70 kg person contains about 140 g of Potassium, most of which is located in muscle tissue. Because of its relative abundance in the body and its energetic emissions, 40K is easily the predominant radioactive component in normal human foods and tissues. However, Potassium in the body is under strict homeostatic control.<5> The human body does a pretty good job of regulating potassium, and thus there isn't much of a chance of getting a buildup of 40K.<6>
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Banana_equivalent_dose

[RegieRocker]

163. You become what you eat.

* Chest X-ray: ~1000 bananas
* Average background exposure in one year: 30,420 bananas
* Abdominal X-ray: 40,560 bananas
* Living in the Colorado Plateau for one year: 45,630 bananas
* Typical yearly dose for a uranium miner: 50,700-101,390 bananas
* Full-body CT scan: 101,390 bananas
* Lowest dose for any statistical risk of cancer: 506,940 bananas
* Mild radiation sickness (headache, risk of infection): 5,069,440-10,138,890 bananas
* Light radiation poisoning (mild to moderate nausea, fatigue, 10% risk of death after 30 days): 10,138,890-20,277,780 bananas
* Severe radiation poisoning (vomiting, hair loss, permanent sterility, 35% risk of death after 30 days): 20,277,780-30,416,670 bananas
* Severe radiation poisoning (bleeding in mouth and under skin, 50% risk of death after 30 days): 30,416,670-40,555,560 bananas
* Acute radiation poisoning (60% fatality risk after 30 days): 40,555,560-60,833,330 bananas
* Acute radiation poisoning (bone marrow destroyed, nearly 100% fatality after 14 days): 60,833,330-101,388,890 bananas
* Acute radiation poisoning (symptoms appear within 30 minutes, massive diarrhea, internal bleeding, delirium, coma): 101,388,890-506,944,440 bananas
* Coma in seconds or minutes, death within hours: 506,944,440-811,111,110 bananas
* Instant death: >811,111,110 bananas
http://www.reddit.com/r/science/comments/g45lm/

Banana Science from those who have gone Bananas

[Petrushka]

164. LOL--- Thanks for the link! I'm banana deficient & must take 978mg of prescription potassium daily.

That might explain why, at times, I have trouble going. Bananas, that is.



:shrug: