Nuclear VS. Renewables, EVs, and Jobs - Truth in the House!

[AndyH]

100% natural.

And 100% deadly to organic life.

Puzzling, isn't it? How has life managed to live on a planet contaminated with 100% deadly polonium... For billions of years, no less.

And life has evolved on a planet with plenty of lava as well.

The difference, as I hope you already know, is that life has not evolved IN or ON that lava, any more than one can find trees growing out of uranium deposits. Yes, life can exist on the same planet as radioactive decay and lava as long as they stay at least a sufficient distance away.

That's really the point about showing the stark contrast between what nature does and what humanity does! Humans are the ONLY life on this planet that digs poisons out of the ground and puts them in the middle of our kids. No other organism on this planet does that.

So no - don't even try to sell nuclear power as 'safe' or 'natural'.

As I've said plenty of times here - I'm not anti-nuclear per se. I know materials can be mined and prepared safely. I know that we can produce plenty of energy from it safely. The problem is that we DON'T.

 

[AndyH]

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iTqzqoKMLEg[/youtube]

 

[WetEV]

any more than one can find trees growing out of uranium deposits.

Really. No trees grow on uranium deposits. Not a single one. The things I learn on the InterTubes.

I suppose that would be true of thorium deposits as well. What you think, AndyH?

 

[Smidge204]

And 100% deadly to organic life.

Most natural things are!

Edit: Also, possibly relevant XKCD
=Smidge=

 

[WetEV]

any more than one can find trees growing out of uranium deposits.

I'm still amused. Ramsar, Iran is famous. Why, AndyH?

 

[RegGuheert]

Edit: Also, possibly relevant XKCD

Interesting chart! Thanks!

I will say that my hope is to stay WAY, WAY below any level "clearly linked to cancer", as cancer has been on the rise for decades even with the "protection" of the EPA in place. It seems cancer can be "caused" by things which we are unable to detect using current methods.

One practice which I find particularly frustrating is the idea that EPA has decided to take nuclear waste and mix it into fertilizer for broadcasting onto fields which are used to grow food. :roll: Forgetting about the fields which are rendered sterile by such a practice, what is the effect on the food grown in the other fields as well as the workers in those fields.

Anything man can engineer can fail, often in ways that are unforeseen. If we can meet our energy needs using less dangerous methods, then I think we should. But I'll submit that is an open question with current technology. While it is possible to disconnect from the grid today, I'm not yet convinced there is a renewable solution that doesn't do MORE damage to the environment than some of the current non-renewable solutions. Nuclear fission reactors included.

 

[jsongster]

The money behind the pro-nuclear movement?

http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Heritage_Foundation
http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/John_Birch_Society
http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Cato_Institute
http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Peter_Peterson
http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Pacific_Legal_Foundation

What a rogue's gallery of psychopathic organizations...

I am a person who has worked at one of our National Labs. I am not irrationally afraid of Nukes... however... Letting the profit motive determine safety... actuarial tables help lawyers determine "acceptable" risks, IS INSANITY. 3 mile Island's lousy design and very near melt, Chernobyl's lousy leaky design and near melt, Fukushima's near melt and lack of dead man switches to shut them down when badly damaged, have proven that we are not mature enough to handle it... that and the massive issue of waste which should be dealt with first... pretty much rule it out for me until when or if mankind actually grows the F up.

Since the groups listed are all determined to destroy our liberties and enslave us to them, the corporate masters, their endorsement of any idea dooms it for me.

 

[WetEV]

What a rogue's gallery of psychopathic organizations...Since the groups listed are all determined to destroy our liberties and enslave us to them, the corporate masters, their endorsement of any idea dooms it for me.

Hitler was a vegetarian. Hitler was determined to destroy our liberties and enslave us.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adolf_Hitler%27s_vegetarianism" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Therefore you should never consider a vegetarian diet.

 

[AndyH]

What a rogue's gallery of psychopathic organizations...Since the groups listed are all determined to destroy our liberties and enslave us to them, the corporate masters, their endorsement of any idea dooms it for me.

Hitler was a vegetarian. Hitler was determined to destroy our liberties and enslave us.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adolf_Hitler%27s_vegetarianism" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Therefore you should never consider a vegetarian diet.

And with that, you're back on the ignore list.

 

[AndyH]

 

[WetEV]

One practice which I find particularly frustrating is the idea that EPA has decided to take nuclear waste and mix it into fertilizer for broadcasting onto fields which are used to grow food.

I'm puzzled by this. Would you please provide a reference?

 

[RegGuheert]

One practice which I find particularly frustrating is the idea that EPA has decided to take nuclear waste and mix it into fertilizer for broadcasting onto fields which are used to grow food.

I'm puzzled by this. Would you please provide a reference?

Sure. Here is an old article from the NY Times which includes some details of the history of the practice along with some of the concerns.

There is plenty of discussion on the internet: http://lmgtfy.com/?q=nuclear+waste+fertilizer" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

 

[WetEV]

One practice which I find particularly frustrating is the idea that EPA has decided to take nuclear waste and mix it into fertilizer for broadcasting onto fields which are used to grow food.

I'm puzzled by this. Would you please provide a reference?

Sure. Here is an old article from the NY Times which includes some details of the history of the practice along with some of the concerns.

There is plenty of discussion on the internet: http://lmgtfy.com/?q=nuclear+waste+fertilizer" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

There is plenty of stuff on the Internet, so thanks for narrowing down what you were talking about.

As the EPA says,

Due to its chemical properties, phosphate rock may contain significant quantities of naturally occurring radioactive materials (NORM):

uranium (and its decay products, including radium)
thorium (and its decay products)

Uranium concentrations in phosphate ores found in the U.S. range from 20 to 300 parts per million(ppm) (or 7 to 100 pCi/g), while thorium occurs at essentially background levels, between 1 to 5 ppm (or about 0.1 to 0.6 pCi/g).

The most important use of phosphate rock is in the production of phosphate fertilizers. It accounted for over 90 percent of the phosphate rock demand in the United States in 2006.

So if phosphate rock is mined, and none of naturally occurring radioactive materials are deliberately removed, then it is just phosphate fertilizer. That's OK?
If phosphate rock is mined, and some of the naturally occurring radioactive materials are removed for use, then it is radioactive waste, and not OK?

Do I have the problem correctly stated?

Or did I miss some key point?

 

[RegGuheert]

So if phosphate rock is mined, and none of naturally occurring radioactive materials are deliberately removed, then it is just phosphate fertilizer. That's OK?

No. Like many modern commercial practices, putting radioactive fertilizers on fields to grow foods is a foolish thing to do. There is strong evidence that the primary cancer-causing agent in tobacco smoke is radiation from the phosphate fertilizers that was taken up by the plants and transferred to the lungs by the smoke. This radiation is taken up by food crops as well, but the effects of eating these radioactive foods is apparently not as harmful as smoking the tobacco. But is it safe? As we dig up more and more radioactive materials from the ground and spread it on our fields, we only add to the environmental damage we do. IMO, a much wiser solution is to use organic fertilizers, which is exactly what we use here.

If phosphate rock is mined, and some of the naturally occurring radioactive materials are removed for use, then it is radioactive waste, and not OK?

Note that the product is not the same. Normal phosphate fertilizer is a solid, while that which has had some of the radioactive materials removed is a liquid with additional chemical additives. It is very likely that liquid fertilizers will be absorbed by plants in a different manner than solid fertilizers. Is is more dangerous than original solid fertilizer? I don't know, but it seems both are likely hazardous.

Do I have the problem correctly stated?

You have tried to minimize the impact of mining naturally-occurring radioactive materials for spreading onto our food crops, but that does not mean the practices are wise or safe. Also note by mining the phosphate rocks to produce fertilizer, there are radioactive by-products such as radioactive gypsum which are piling up in massive quantities. Here is a link which details some of the side-effects of producing phosphate fertilizers from mined ore: The Phosphate Fertilizer Industry: An Environment Overview.

Or did I miss some key point?

It seems you have missed the anecdotal evidence listed of plant and animal health problems after application of the materials. Dismiss that if you like, but those reports could indicate real problems which are not yet understood and/or acknowledged by the corporations profiting from the production and sale of these materials.

IMO, if we choose to ignore the ever-growing rates of cancer and other diseases in our society and don't keep working to reduce know causes of cancer such as radiation, then we deserve our fate. But I prefer to work to reduce the mining of radioactive materials as much as possible and simply leave them in the ground. Likely our health and the health of our environment will benefit from such a step.

 

[AndyH]

What do we do with all the radioactive material left over after we extract nuclear fuel? Since we have too much to store, we might as well make armor-piercing bullets in order to reduce our stockpiles of depleted uranium.

Too bad that it's harming both the military members that use it and the civilians that remain when the military withdraws.

http://www.publichealth.va.gov/PUBLICHEALTH/exposures/depleted_uranium/index.asp
http://www.who.int/ionizing_radiation/pub_meet/en/DU_Eng.pdf
http://www.albany.edu/ihe/emerging/DU_HealthEffects_Research_Summary.htm
http://www.commondreams.org/views01/0108-05.htm

 

[Stoaty]

Here is a link which details some of the side-effects of producing phosphate fertilizers from mined ore: The Phosphate Fertilizer Industry: An Environment Overview.

When I first saw that the website was fluoridealert.org, I dismissed it as likely right wing propaganda. In the 1950's "The John Birch Society also contended that fluoride being added to drinking water was a communist mind control plot and a secret conspiracy to destroy America":

http://videocafe.crooksandliars.com/heather/rachel-maddow-exposes-john-birch-society-c" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

When I looked up known reputable sources of information on water fluoridation, I was surprised to learn that the Environmental Working Group agrees that fluoridation is an unnecessary risk:

http://www.ewg.org/enviroblog/2011/02/fluoride-your-water-how-much-too-much" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

You learn something new every day.

 

[WetEV]

So if phosphate rock is mined, and none of naturally occurring radioactive materials are deliberately removed, then it is just phosphate fertilizer. That's OK?

No. Like many modern commercial practices, putting radioactive fertilizers on fields to grow foods is a foolish thing to do.

Are organic fertilizers radioactive? If not, how is the K (potassium) provided?

 

[TomT]

"Japan took a major step back on Friday from earlier pledges to slash its greenhouse gas emissions, saying a shutdown of its nuclear power plants in the wake of the Fukushima disaster had made previous targets unattainable. The announcement cast a shadow over international talks underway in Warsaw aimed at fashioning a new global pact to address the threats of a changing climate."

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/11/16/world/asia/japan-shelves-plan-to-slash-emissions-citing-fukushima.html?_r=0" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

 

[AndyH]

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/03/080304100413.htm

According to a report published in Inderscience's International Journal of Nuclear Governance, Economy and Ecology such a large growth rate will require a major improvement in nuclear power efficiency otherwise each new power plant will simply cannibalize the energy produced by earlier nuclear power plants...

For example, the energy input required from mining and processing uranium ore to its use in a power plant that costs huge amounts of energy to build and operate cannot be offset by power production in a high growth scenario. There are also growth limits set by the grade of uranium ore. "The limit of uranium ore grade to offset greenhouse gas emissions is significantly higher than the purely thermodynamic limit set by the energy payback time," he explains.

 

[DaveinOlyWA]

after a lot of contemplation I think Japan has made a mistake abandoning their nuclear power base by overdosing on CNG. As a long term solution, i still dont favor nuclear power but Japan is not able to transition to clean energy options fast enough and I think they need to learn from the missteps of Fukushima, go back to nuclear, fix their reactors to be better and continue to transition to solar, wind and wave.

otherwise the tragedy will continue to multiply way beyond the radiation levels at the site.