Carcinogens in Gulf Spill and the Preferability of Nuclear Power

[Thanatos]

I'm pretty sure nuclear power plants cannot send thousands of tons of now-radioactive dust particles into the stratosphere.

When working as intended, no, no phase of the nuclear fuel cycle does that. However, if there is a meltdown or the spent fuel rod pond ever runs out of water, then things become hot enough to burn, vaporize or deflagrate and vast plumes of radioactive material are free to wander the countryside.

I am skeptical. If one rooftop solar array can barely provide enough energy to power one's water heater, then how can millions of solar arrays on millions of houses heat more than millions of water heaters? I do believe someone violated conservation of energy somewhere down line.

PV used to heat water? The owner was doing it wrong. Vacuum tube solar heaters (direct solar-to-heat conversion) are the hot water sources of the gods. These things are amazing; I've seen an array output hot water under half an inch of snow just from the light that was filtering through. If all you want is dangerously hot showers then this is the technology for you.

However, there are limits. Making things hot using sunlight is easy, but making them cool is difficult. We will never easily power all our AC compressors with solar. Getting around this problem requires either clever engineering or just giving up on AC entirely and designing a home with absurdly thick walls and good airflow so you can live in a hot climate without AC.

If you can solve heating and cooling needs, then leftover energy demands (computers, CFL lighting, large televisions, microwaves) are satisfiable with a couple of meters of PV paneling.

[grandpa]

"Mothers in Fukushima, Japan, worry that the food and milk that they must feed daily to their infants and children may one day kill them. Is that a fear that an American parent can even begin to fathom? That because of the secrecy, the intransigence and, ultimately, the criminality of your own government, you might be unwillingly killing your own children by feeding them produce contaminated with radioactive fallout? And yet, that is life in Fukushima Prefecture today."
http://www.counterpunch.org/2012/06/...oactive-cloud/

[Hermenutic]

The present energy paradigm has our destruction built in. Are we being asked to die from chemicals or radiation? Coal will kill us, oil will kill us and unless you can envision a way of making harmless radioactive waste nuclear energy will kill us.

The proposal of nuclear energy as a solution is flawed until it is proven waste can be economically neutralized. If a way to neutralize it is not found then you must envision piles and piles of toxic waste all over of able to be spread all over the world by a simple unpredictable geological event such as an earthquake, meteor, flood or volcano or as some would like you to fear, 'terrorists'.

Nuclear energy as we know it is another short sighted misbegotten idea and will remain so until they can neutralize radioactive waste.

[Angry Citizen]

Tell me, just how does nuclear waste crawl out of deep caves in order to "kill us"? Fact is, you don't really know what you're talking about, and I would ask you to show me otherwise.

[Hermenutic]

Well I don't recall that I said radiation could crawl. I did mention earthquakes, floods, and geological disasters which would have the potential to release contamination among those unfortunate to be living nearby. Crawling radiation has never been documented to my knowledge. Earthquakes and their effect on nuclear facilities have been documented however and their effect has been considered negative by all but those who make the machinery.

Nuclear energy has been promoted as safe clean and efficient and public debate has never seriously taken into account the amount of waste sitting around.

Over time the waste keeps accumulating. http://www.scientificamerican.com/ar...-nuclear-waste

There are at present 121 storage sites in the U.S for this waste according to the article in the Scientific American article at the link.

Now lets suppose in 200 years that number has increased to supply the demand of the 20 billion people on the planet. so in 200 years there are many many more of these toxic sites.

I am proposing simply that the waste is deadly. As long as it is on the earth it is subject to the whims of the environment and as long as the waste is not able to be neutralized it produces a greater risk than religious fanatics.

I know most like to think things will just keep on rolling along, I've lived long enough to know they don't. The odds are if something is possible it will happen if given enough time. An evolutionist should understand this. If you want to gamble go ahead. I live in an area I am told will be thrown into the sea some day. The fact that it hasn't happened doesn't change the facts of the juan defuca plates existence and the potential it holds. http://myshasta.info/tempest/quake.html

I don't know from one morning to the next when this will happen, but it is certain to happen we are told. We are having radioactive fish wash up on shore and boats from last years nuclear disaster in Japan arriving frequently without crew. But if you say we are in no danger I guess you must know.

Tell me, just how does nuclear waste crawl out of deep caves in order to "kill us"? Fact is, you don't really know what you're talking about, and I would ask you to show me otherwise.

[Angry Citizen]

Well I don't recall that I said radiation could crawl. I did mention earthquakes, floods, and geological disasters which would have the potential to release contamination among those unfortunate to be living nearby.

Such things would have no affect on an underground repository. Waste is made chemically inert to water contamination, and any earthquake would at worst merely collapse the structure of the cave and bury the waste still further.

Earthquakes and their effect on nuclear facilities have been documented however and their effect has been considered negative by all but those who make the machinery.

It is a negative, but it is not a significant negative. There are no known radiation deaths from the one nuclear power plant that has been heavily affected by an earthquake.

Now lets suppose in 200 years that number has increased to supply the demand of the 20 billion people on the planet. so in 200 years there are many many more of these toxic sites.

For one, there will not be 20 billion people on Earth in two hundred years. For two, the United States has so many nuclear waste sites because these sites are the reactors themselves. We do not have a repository for nuclear waste at this time, due to the political wranglings of people such as yourself who are too misinformed about nuclear power to understand it. For three, the volume of nuclear waste is nearly entirely in the form of radiologically inert U-238, aka depleted uranium. We in the United States do not reprocess nuclear waste, again due to the actions of luddites. Other countries such as France do.

I am proposing simply that the waste is deadly.

I wouldn't eat it with my cereal, no. But deadly is relative. A lake is deadly. Thankfully, lakes are usually contained by natural formations that prevent it from rising above its bounds and swamping local regions. You don't see campaigns to dry up all the lakes.

We are having radioactive fish wash up on shore and boats from last years nuclear disaster in Japan arriving frequently without crew. But if you say we are in no danger I guess you must know.

Technically, bananas are radioactive.

And yes, I do know. Nuclear power is the safest form of practical energy on the planet. It has caused less than a hundred deaths in its entire six decade reign, all of which happened long before modern plants were envisioned and constructed. You have been duped by the Green Brigade intent on tilting at solar windmills.

[Hermenutic]

Well I feel your assurances rank with those politicians who have said our sons will not die in foreign wars. Honestly I find it difficult for you to defend this as safe. The Columbia river has been poisoned with radiation from the Hanford nuclear plant in Washington state and it needed nothing but time to do its damage. No one has cleaned it up yet. That is because clean up is not possible if it was possible it would have been done because poisoning the river was not part of their plan.

Is been documented that the fish in the river, the food supply, has been harmed by this. http://www.nytimes.com/1997/10/11/us...ted=all&src=pm

Since initial alarms the prognosis for the river, the drinking water and the food supply have been seen to have been placed in danger.

http://www.pcffa.org/fn-sep02.htm In the case of Hanford the radiation did not crawl out of containment it just leaked. Perhaps you were unaware that radiation does not crawl but that it leaks. You would be incorrect to say it crawled, but you would be incorrect to say it does not leak.

QUOTE=Hermenutic;881901]Well I don't recall that I said radiation could crawl. I did mention earthquakes, floods, and geological disasters which would have the potential to release contamination among those unfortunate to be living nearby. Crawling radiation has never been documented to my knowledge. Earthquakes and their effect on nuclear facilities have been documented however and their effect has been considered negative by all but those who make the machinery.

Nuclear energy has been promoted as safe clean and efficient and public debate has never seriously taken into account the amount of waste sitting around.

Over time the waste keeps accumulating. http://www.scientificamerican.com/ar...-nuclear-waste

There are at present 121 storage sites in the U.S for this waste according to the article in the Scientific American article at the link.

Now lets suppose in 200 years that number has increased to supply the demand of the 20 billion people on the planet. so in 200 years there are many many more of these toxic sites.

I am proposing simply that the waste is deadly. As long as it is on the earth it is subject to the whims of the environment and as long as the waste is not able to be neutralized it produces a greater risk than religious fanatics.

I know most like to think things will just keep on rolling along, I've lived long enough to know they don't. The odds are if something is possible it will happen if given enough time. An evolutionist should understand this. If you want to gamble go ahead. I live in an area I am told will be thrown into the sea some day. The fact that it hasn't happened doesn't change the facts of the juan defuca plates existence and the potential it holds. http://myshasta.info/tempest/quake.html

I don't know from one morning to the next when this will happen, but it is certain to happen we are told. We are having radioactive fish wash up on shore and boats from last years nuclear disaster in Japan arriving frequently without crew. But if you say we are in no danger I guess you must know.[/QUOTE]

[Hermenutic]

(I monkeyed up the post sorry)

Well I feel your assurances rank with those politicians who have said our sons will not die in foreign wars. Honestly I find it difficult for you to defend this as safe. The Columbia river has been poisoned with radiation from the Hanford nuclear plant in Washington state and it needed nothing but time to do its damage. No one has cleaned it up yet. That is because clean up is not possible if it was possible it would have been done because poisoning the river was not part of their plan.

Is been documented that the fish in the river, the food supply, has been harmed by this. http://www.nytimes.com/1997/10/11/us...ted=all&src=pm

Since initial alarms the prognosis for the river, the drinking water and the food supply have been seen to have been placed in danger.

http://www.pcffa.org/fn-sep02.htm In the case of Hanford the radiation did not crawl out of containment it just leaked. Perhaps you were unaware that radiation does not crawl but that it leaks. You would be incorrect to say it crawled, but you would be incorrect to say it does not leak.

Such things would have no affect on an underground repository. Waste is made chemically inert to water contamination, and any earthquake would at worst merely collapse the structure of the cave and bury the waste still further.



It is a negative, but it is not a significant negative. There are no known radiation deaths from the one nuclear power plant that has been heavily affected by an earthquake.



For one, there will not be 20 billion people on Earth in two hundred years. For two, the United States has so many nuclear waste sites because these sites are the reactors themselves. We do not have a repository for nuclear waste at this time, due to the political wranglings of people such as yourself who are too misinformed about nuclear power to understand it. For three, the volume of nuclear waste is nearly entirely in the form of radiologically inert U-238, aka depleted uranium. We in the United States do not reprocess nuclear waste, again due to the actions of luddites. Other countries such as France do.



I wouldn't eat it with my cereal, no. But deadly is relative. A lake is deadly. Thankfully, lakes are usually contained by natural formations that prevent it from rising above its bounds and swamping local regions. You don't see campaigns to dry up all the lakes.



Technically, bananas are radioactive.

And yes, I do know. Nuclear power is the safest form of practical energy on the planet. It has caused less than a hundred deaths in its entire six decade reign, all of which happened long before modern plants were envisioned and constructed. You have been duped by the Green Brigade intent on tilting at solar windmills.

[Angry Citizen]

Is been documented that the fish in the river, the food supply, has been harmed by this.

According to "some experts", some fifteen years ago.

From the article:

The tanks, some with a capacity of up to one million gallons, were built in haste and buried at the Hanford reservation during the Manhattan Project, the World War II effort to build the atomic bomb, and the cold war.

In other words, a very old tank built when this technology was still new is leaking an unknown amount of radioactive material that will be dispersed over many square miles. Consider me quaking in my boots at the thought of more nuclear reactors built with modern standards for safety and containment.

In the case of Hanford the radiation did not crawl out of containment it just leaked. Perhaps you were unaware that radiation does not crawl but that it leaks.

"Radiation" does not crawl or leak. Radiation is nothing more than a particle released from an atom. It is the atoms which "leak". But even these atoms do not "leak" using modern techniques for rendering the material chemically inert, a process known as vitrification or "glassification". Again, this is something individuals on your side of the ideological spectrum seem to have eliminated from United States policy.

[Hermenutic]

I guess you are intransigent in your position. If examples in real life which we call reality do not convince you nothing will. I sense you are not taking this seriously you are merely defending your POV. If you can dismiss this as irrelevant to the conversation it means one thing to me, you are not able to look reality in the face and describe what you see.

If I produce a river, a food source and a water supply that is damaged by the technology you are defending and you say it's okay, no problem, we are doing it better now, I understand you and real life have parted ways. this seems to be the type of blinders many are wearing today.

You have your reality structured differently than mine. I like to eat fish and drink water. It's true that radiation cures cancer, it also causes it.

Perhaps free market hooligans could start promoting radiation polluted food as a cure for cancer.

According to "some experts", some fifteen years ago.

From the article:



In other words, a very old tank built when this technology was still new is leaking an unknown amount of radioactive material that will be dispersed over many square miles. Consider me quaking in my boots at the thought of more nuclear reactors built with modern standards for safety and containment.



"Radiation" does not crawl or leak. Radiation is nothing more than a particle released from an atom. It is the atoms which "leak". But even these atoms do not "leak" using modern techniques for rendering the material chemically inert, a process known as vitrification or "glassification". Again, this is something individuals on your side of the ideological spectrum seem to have eliminated from United States policy.

[Angry Citizen]

I sense you are not taking this seriously you are merely defending your POV.

Don't question my motives. I've taken this seriously enough to conduct multi-year-long studies in the subject from an engineering perspective. The fact is, there is such a thing as scale. I don't know how much radiation escaped from Hanford, but it likely is not particularly significant. Certainly Chernobyl was significant, but I can explain that too.

If you'd like a detailed overview of my position, along with the science behind it, I recommend looking at my thread: http://www.volconvo.com/forums/scien...-solution.html

[Hermenutic]

I've been mislead by experts all my life. I have lived long enough to see they told me one thing and it has turned out quite differently. That experience means more to me than assurances from more experts.

In the end it is ultimately meaningless. In 50 years or less you and I will be worm food, death negates all meaning. Our grandchildren will be standing here dealing with this mess and they too will die.

Dotting the countryside with nuclear waste facilities simply does not sound like a rational plan. We have 120 or so now. It stands to reason if we expand nuclear energy production that waste sites must also multiply. Last year a disposal site was threatened by wild fires in New Mexico. The waste was stored in barrels in an open field in the path of the fire. They had not planned on the fire, but they understood it provided an increased risk and they understood it to the degree they tried to keep the fire from getting to the nuclear waste.

The fact that they understood there was the possibility of danger from fire and yet did it anyway does not engender confidence in the people responsible for the safeguarding of these materials. It makes me think they have other priorities.

Don't question my motives. I've taken this seriously enough to conduct multi-year-long studies in the subject from an engineering perspective. The fact is, there is such a thing as scale. I don't know how much radiation escaped from Hanford, but it likely is not particularly significant. Certainly Chernobyl was significant, but I can explain that too.

If you'd like a detailed overview of my position, along with the science behind it, I recommend looking at my thread: http://www.volconvo.com/forums/scien...-solution.html