Nuke Crisis : Level 7 on overall impact

AndyH said:

The comment was about regulations and safeguards, not source.

Click to expand...

Of course source doesn't matter, except for the natural radioactive beach in Brazil is far more radioactive than the average near Fukushima in Japan.

Both are tiny hazards to health. The beach is somehow politically correct. The beach doesn't need regulations or safeguards.

AndyH said:

WetEV said:

Sure, because of massive increase in fossil fuel burning. That is so much better, isn't it?

Click to expand...

The increased use of fossil fuels today is not permanent as Japan is quickly installing renewable generation. So yes, it is better.

Click to expand...

The increased use of fossil fuels in Japan is permanent on the time scale that matters. It will be decades before enough solar/wind is installed to replace the nuclear reactors that were shutdown. And solar/wind will never replace all of the fossil fuels, unless there is a technological breakthrough in energy storage, Japan will be burning large amounts of fossil fuels in a fifty years.

Fukushima was a disaster. Because of the fossil fuel that will be burned, not because of the radiation release.

Of course source doesn't matter, except for the natural radioactive beach in Brazil is far more radioactive than the average near Fukushima in Japan.

Both are tiny hazards to health. The beach is somehow politically correct. The beach doesn't need regulations or safeguards.

Click to expand...

You are overlooking the sources of radiation. Background radiation doesn't come in large, discrete, long-lived particles that have a safe exposure level of zero - no safe exposure. Plutonium isn't like background radiation, it's more like a poison that gives you cancer months or years or even decades after you ingest or inhale it. Fukushima has plutonium dust scattered over the landscape, with no way of removing them all. The average radiation may not be lethal (except of course at the plant, where it is quite lethal, unlike at the beach) but the plutonium will make the area uninhabitable for many, many, many years. If the "spent" fuel pools burn, though, the land around the plant will be the least of our worries...

LeftieBiker said:

Of course source doesn't matter, except for the natural radioactive beach in Brazil is far more radioactive than the average near Fukushima in Japan.

Both are tiny hazards to health. The beach is somehow politically correct. The beach doesn't need regulations or safeguards.

Click to expand...

You are overlooking the sources of radiation. Background radiation doesn't come in large, discrete, long-lived particles that have a safe exposure level of zero - no safe exposure.

Click to expand...

You mean like radium. Or uranium. Or thorium. Or radon. Or potassium. Or tritium. No level of exposure to these natural radioactive material is safe, in the sense of zero risk.

The beach in Brazil is radioactive because of the presence of sand containing high levels of naturally radioactive material. Sand is made up of large discrete long-lived particles.

LeftieBiker said:

Plutonium isn't like background radiation, it's more like a poison that gives you cancer months or years or even decades after you ingest or inhale it.

Click to expand...

Plutonium isn't different than naturally radioactive atoms. The reason why propaganda about plutonium is effective is twofold.

1) Plutonium isn't natural. Ok, yes with a very good mass spectrometer you can find a tiny amount naturally present in any uranium ore, but that isn't how plutonium was first found, and most plutonium is man made.
2) Plutonium is associated with the atomic bomb. Scary.

Don't confuse effective propaganda with facts.

Plutonium isn't different than naturally radioactive atoms. The reason why propaganda about plutonium is effective is twofold.

1) Plutonium isn't natural. Ok, yes with a very good mass spectrometer you can find a tiny amount naturally present in any uranium ore, but that isn't how plutonium was first found, and most plutonium is man made.
2) Plutonium is associated with the atomic bomb. Scary.

Don't confuse effective propaganda with facts.

Click to expand...

That's exactly what I'd tell you, but I suspect it's more a job for you than an opinion. The toxicity and carcinogenic properties of Plutonium are well understood, even if you prefer to imply otherwise.

LeftieBiker said:

That's exactly what I'd tell you, but I suspect it's more a job for you than an opinion.

Click to expand...

So you think I work in the nuclear business, eh?

Wrong.

This is why I think we should be using nuclear power:

http://keelingcurve.ucsd.edu/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

And if you don't understand, I'll explain.

LeftieBiker said:

The toxicity and carcinogenic properties of Plutonium are well understood, even if you prefer to imply otherwise

Click to expand...

Really. Do explain, with references to creditable sources.

Wiki points to this, which might be a good start:

http://web.archive.org/web/20060929015050/http://www.llnl.gov/csts/publications/sutcliffe/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Your own cite is a good place to start. It's an attempt by the government and nuclear industry to allay fears by using lots of qualifiers and noting that plutonium isn't going to kill everyone who inhales or ingests it. No kidding. It also cites selectively the allegations most easy to rebut, like the risks of plutonium in a water supply, while apparently (I skimmed) ignoring the risks associated with ground surface contamination. It does note the extreme risk of inhaling plutonium, although they seem to think that cancer later on in life isn't such a big deal.

It really doesn't matter if you are paid to do this or do it for love of the nuclear power industry. The end result is the same. I suggest you spend as much time as possible posting in this forum, but I'm not going to keep responding. Folks like you usually manage to produce the opposite effect you intend, all by yourselves.

In case you haven't heard of this accident (it's pretty much well known in this town), it might be pertinent. Well, not exactly plutonium, but americium is pretty similar, from a radiobiology stand point, plus they were doing a separation so there was probably plutonium present as well. I don't remember the exact details, but I seem to remember something about the accident being "caused" by a strike that shut down processing from several months. When everyone returned, they restarted a ion exchange separations process that had been sitting with concentrated nitric acid, organic resin, and alpha-emitters. Oops, that was a big mistake. Safe shutdown is more important than a couple of bucks more pay. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harold_McCluskey

Interesting Frontline documentary on the subject.

Meet The Underpaid, Overexposed 'Liquidators' Of Fukushima

http://www.worldcrunch.com/world-af...ors-cleaners-nightmare/c1s13703/#.UmEomFB958E

“The quality of work is mediocre because the management asks us to work fast, but the guys aren’t experienced enough,” explains the supervisor of a radioactivity inspection company, in charge of about 50 workers. “Sometimes they don’t even know the names of the tools. The teams often change. There’s a mandatory rotation because workers who have received the maximum radiation exposure must leave the zone. But others leave prematurely because they think they're not paid enough. If we don’t manage to form a qualified and trustworthy team quickly, we won’t be able to work fast and efficiently. We even lack qualified team supervisors.”

Click to expand...

7.3 Earthquake and tsunami warning issued: Fukushima Prefecture

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/10/25/japan-earthquake-fukushima-prefecture_n_4164181.html
10/25/13 02:31 PM ET EDT

TOKYO -- TOKYO (AP) — An earthquake of magnitude 7.3 struck early Saturday morning off Japan's east coast, the U.S. Geological Survey said. Japan's emergency agencies declared a tsunami warning for the region that includes the crippled Fukushima nuclear site.

Japan's Meteorological Agency issued a 1-meter (3-foot) tsunami warning for a long stretch of Japan's northeastern coast. It put the magnitude of the quake at 7.1. The U.S. Pacific Tsunami Warning Center did not post warnings for the rest of the Pacific.

Click to expand...

Fukushima: Three years later...

Crowd-sourced radiation monitoring.

http://blog.safecast.org/
http://gamma.tar.bz/maps/main/



Regional majors join; government ministers walk out without listening.
http://www.democracynow.org/2014/1/17/we_want_to_fight_for_this

New documentary: http://nuclearnation.jp/en/

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

Another leak of radioactive water at Fukushima...

http://news.yahoo.com/highly-radioactive-leak-japan-39-fukushima-plant-045324842--finance.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Which is worse, the occasional accident like this or devastating climate disruption from CO2?

I've heard people say you could have all the solar panels and wind turbines imaginable and you'd never be able meet the world's energy needs without nukes if you want to displace fossil fuels. I have no idea if that is true, but I suspect others here know more.

Which is worse, the occasional accident like this or devastating climate disruption from CO2?

Click to expand...

That would depend on how devastating each event turns out to be. The worst case climate change scenario is certainly worse than the best case scenario at Fukushima, but that doesn't appear to be what's happening there. As for not being able to provide all the world's needed energy with alternative sources, those arguments tend to assume current or higher consumption levels. If you assume a lower energy lifestyle, and less wasteful industrial processes, it doesn't look so bad.

LTLFTcomposite said:

Which is worse, the occasional accident like this or devastating climate disruption from CO2?

I've heard people say you could have all the solar panels and wind turbines imaginable and you'd never be able meet the world's energy needs without nukes if you want to displace fossil fuels. I have no idea if that is true, but I suspect others here know more.

Click to expand...

Yeah. I've heard a lot of incorrect things as well.

Thankfully, we've got real answers. They've been linked to death in this forum but they're continually ignored by those that prefer to get their information from the fossil fuel industry and right-wing bloggers rather than science. Just in the off chance that doesn't apply to you, feel free to check out the following:

http://www.rmi.org/reinventingfire
Transitions the US power grid for less than business as usual. Supports a 150% larger economy. Performed 100% by business for profit - no politicians necessary. No nukes, no coal, 75% less natural gas. Already in progress.

http://thethirdindustrialrevolution.com/
100% renewable. Already in progress in Germany. Also underway in the entire EU, and adopted by the UN.

More here - including plans, models, simulations that show exactly how we can provide 98% of the world's energy needs from renewables by 2030 with current tech and our current power grids/structures.
http://www.mynissanleaf.com/viewtopic.php?p=194663

Edit - during the December iteration of the polar vortex deep freeze, it was WIND not nuclear that kept lights on and allowed natural gas use to be reduced.

http://www.sustainablebusiness.com/index.cfm/go/news.display/id/25434

^ It wasn't Sean Hannity, I don't have time for that nonsense, this was some random guy on FB encountered as I suggested the role renewables could play. As for Germany, according to the Spiegel catalog not everyone thinks they are on the right track, but I question the veracity of this source or at least its inputs based on the fretting over electrical fields.

http://m.spiegel.de/international/germany/a-888094.html#spRedirectedFrom=www&referrrer=http://m.facebook.com/l.php?u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.spiegel.de%2Finternational%2Fgermany%2Fgerman-renewable-energy-policy-takes-toll-on-nature-conservation-a-888094.html&h=qAQGGjVxd&s=1&enc=AZOpJ8qzdRwu5CWqtFvhVxAsYqGbYWSIeZUcUKU_P0_xazGmhj0Fmjlr4MMvwJg3IIOLVoNA-0mqbcl61TLOuRjr" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

They would have you believe the whole country is being deforested to make room for solar panels.

Still I wonder, take some guy in Syracuse, can he really heat his home with solar panels and batteries?

Or does everyone move to the sun belt?

LTLFTcomposite said:

^ It wasn't Sean Hannity, I don't have time for that nonsense, this was some random guy on FB encountered as I suggested the role renewables could play. As for Germany, according to the Spiegel catalog not everyone thinks they are on the right track, but I question the veracity of this source or at least its inputs based on the fretting over electrical fields.

http://m.spiegel.de/international/germany/a-888094.html#spRedirectedFrom=www&referrrer=http://m.facebook.com/l.php?u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.spiegel.de%2Finternational%2Fgermany%2Fgerman-renewable-energy-policy-takes-toll-on-nature-conservation-a-888094.html&h=qAQGGjVxd&s=1&enc=AZOpJ8qzdRwu5CWqtFvhVxAsYqGbYWSIeZUcUKU_P0_xazGmhj0Fmjlr4MMvwJg3IIOLVoNA-0mqbcl61TLOuRjr" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

They would have you believe the whole country is being deforested to make room for solar panels.

Still I wonder, take some guy in Syracuse, can he really heat his home with solar panels and batteries?

Or does everyone move to the sun belt?

Click to expand...

You say it wasn't from Hannity, yet post the German equivalent. Lies are lies, regardless of where on the echo chamber one puts their ear...

Large areas of Germany were already deforested for other reasons - like the former Soviet air force base that's now a solar field:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p2hU17p2xjU
Yet most of the renewable electricity in Germany isn't from solar, it's from wind - and that allows land multi-tasking and provides less expensive electricity than solar or nukes.

Why do you draw a line at Syracuse? Let's find some really harsh spots. How about Maine and Alaska?

http://www.solarhouse.com/
http://passivehouse.us/passiveHouse...erence-Passiv Haus Alaska-Thorsten Chlupp.pdf

Nope - there's no way THAT'LL ever work... :?

LTLFTcomposite said:

Which is worse, the occasional accident like this or devastating climate disruption from CO2?

Click to expand...

To which devastating climate disruption are you referring? Are they "exceptionally unlikely" (such as the collapse of the ice sheets in Greenland or Antarctica) or merely "very unlikely"? Or are they events which the IPCC has "low confidence" that they will occur:

That is table 12.4 from the IPCC's latest Summary for Policy Makers.

We'll see if all the ice in the Arctic really melts. Last time it shrunk to the current thickness of 2 meters was only 70 years ago, so it is not an uncommon event.

Of course during the warming that occurred between 1980 and 2000 the diurnal temperature range was increasing, meaning the overall greenhouse effect was going down. Also, global cloudiness was recorded to be lower during that period. So, clearly, the warming during that periods could not have been caused by the increasing CO2 concentration in the atmosphere and was instead caused by additional sunlight reaching the Earth.

So I will say this "actual" Fukushima accident is worse than the imagined effects of CO2.

LTLFTcomposite said:

I've heard people say you could have all the solar panels and wind turbines imaginable and you'd never be able meet the world's energy needs without nukes if you want to displace fossil fuels. I have no idea if that is true, but I suspect others here know more.

Click to expand...

I calculated in the Ivanpah thread that you could produce the same amount of electricity as the U.S. currently consumes by covering 16% of the "impervious areas" with PV. That does not address the issue of storage (which also needs to be addressed), but that amount of PV is "imaginable" to me. But we need to "actually" add grid-tied PV to sun-facing surfaces to make this more than simply an academic discussion.

LeftieBiker said:

Which is worse, the occasional accident like this or devastating climate disruption from CO2?

Click to expand...

That would depend on how devastating each event turns out to be. The worst case climate change scenario is certainly worse than the best case scenario at Fukushima, but that doesn't appear to be what's happening there. As for not being able to provide all the world's needed energy with alternative sources, those arguments tend to assume current or higher consumption levels. If you assume a lower energy lifestyle, and less wasteful industrial processes, it doesn't look so bad.

Click to expand...

The worst case climate change scenario is something like the PT extinction event. 98% of species go extinct. Forests are replaced with weeds. Almost completely dead oceans. Millions of years to recover.

Worst case from Fukushima doesn't even come close.

WetEV said:

The worst case climate change scenario is something like the PT extinction event. 98% of species go extinct. Forests are replaced with weeds. Almost completely dead oceans. Millions of years to recover.

Click to expand...

You have a vivid imagination! But just because you can imagine it does not mean it is a possible outcome of the anthropogenic release of CO2.

Human-released CO2 has virtually no chance of causing any negative consequences on the Earth. It does benefit the biosphere by improving the rate at which plants perform photosynthesis.