Environment argument Continued ( Split from QuoVadis Versus Pandora Thread)

[ekianjo]

Oh don't worry, we don't leave the safety of nuclear plants up to humans only.

you're not on a tepco payroll, are you?

Certainly not. And Tepco's management is messed up. They should have gone full transparent from day 0. 

 

[ekianjo]

But I'm having a hard time "counting numbers against each other" saying that 15000 people died due to the Tsunami can't be an argument in this discussion as this would have happend anyway with or without a nuclear power plant.

This was simply an example to put things in perspective.  You want something more reasonable? How about this ? 

The current major sources of energies worldwide (coal, oil and gas) kill way more people than nuclear. 

This is interesting, altough nuclear power plants are the safest way to produce energy - according to you, no one is willing to bear the responsibility alone. Seems odd, if it so safe, where is the problem ?

It's all a matter of perception and lack of public education. People jump when they hear "radioactivity" and "nuclear" and most people (i'd say 9/10 if not more) do not even know that radioactivity is a natural phenomenon and that they are irradiated everyday by their own environment and cosmic rays from space. 

And of course this has to do with the negative image of nuclear weapons. It makes it easy to fearmonger when you draw parallels between the two. 

"nuclear politics" aren't the same in every country.

 

Yeah, but we don't see chinese nuclear plants or indian nuclear plants go meltdown. Most of these plants are built by the same standards everywhere, and there is an international nuclear energy consortium as well. 

 

[ekianjo]

But even alpha and beta rays are unhealthy if you breath in particles that emitt them, which is something that could happen (and did in Fukushima) in an nuclear incident.

Yes, but in Fukushima what was emitted in the atmosphere was in very low concentrations. Most of the pollution/contamination went in the ground and the sea.  

nonsense as no one would die instantly from an incident like that.

SL1 operators would probably disagree : they died from heavy radiation in a matter of seconds. Besides, we have numerous examples from people suffering from nuclear weapons radiations, and most of the serious health effects are expected to occur in the few weeks/months after the event. The further away in time from the event you are, the less likely it is that you can say "it is linked to the nuclear incident!". 

 

[ekianjo]

Uranium 235 itself (which has the potential for a spontanious fissin) has not even one weight percent on the mass of "pure" Uranium.

I think you mean that the U235 isotope is found at concentrations less than 1% in U238 uranium ore. 

 

[ekianjo]

I just wanted to hint at the fact the uranium does not come in big chunks that only need to be dug out.

Certainly, there is a whole process needed for digging, milling, processing and enriching uranium before making it into pellets to be used in reactors.  

 

[Klumpen]

Ekianjo, you seem to like this topic,

do you happen know, where all the japanese nuclear waste goes?

I heard something about "throwing it into the sea".

We got big problems with this stuff here in Germany for many years.

 

[ekianjo]

Ekianjo, you seem to like this topic,

do you happen know, where all the japanese nuclear waste goes?

I heard something about "throwing it into the sea".

We got big problems with this stuff here in Germany for many years.

My assumption is that the waste is not going in the sea, as you claim, but the underground water is being contaminated around Fukushima by the ground radioactivity, and that water is then rejected into the sea. So, no, the waste is not going into the sea directly, but it is contaminating the sea indirectly. 

 

[Klumpen]

So where does it go exactly?

 

[ekianjo]

So where does it go exactly?

The waste went to the ground, obviously, by melting. Its not going anywhere, but it still contaminates what goes through it.

But are you talking about Fukushima or in general?

 

[Klumpen]

In general.

 

[KickAss]

http://lmgtfy.com/?q=japan+nuclear+waste+disposal

 

[thatgui]

You want something more reasonable? How about this ? 

...

The current major sources of energies worldwide (coal, oil and gas) kill way more people than nuclear.

This certainly makes more sense, as it refers to the context discussed. But, quite honestly, I think this diagram isn't worth the energy that is used to display it. I tried to click my way through the various blogs that relinked it and in the end got no real source for that data (if I have overlooked it in the process, please point me in the right direction).But even if there would be a reliably source - how is this even measurable - especially worldwide ? There are no special statistics about the sourroundings of a death (like 97 people fell to death during wind turbine construction).

And as said before this is traecherous terrain, as this can be expanded into infinity - like I start arguing that nuclear power plants need a lot more "base material" to be constructed then wind turbines (like concrete, steel, etc) which all have their own "footprint"

It's all a matter of perception and lack of public education. People jump when they hear "radioactivity" and "nuclear" and most people (i'd say 9/10 if not more) do not even know that radioactivity is a natural phenomenon and that they are irradiated everyday by their own environment and cosmic rays from space. 

And of course this has to do with the negative image of nuclear weapons. It makes it easy to fearmonger when you draw parallels between the two.

But this has nothing to do with people that make such decisions on a company level - they usually already operating at least one nuclear power plant. If they would fear nuclear weapons/power (and I doubt that most people can't differentiate) so much, why are they still running one ?

Yeah, but we don't see chinese nuclear plants or indian nuclear plants go meltdown. Most of these plants are built by the same standards everywhere, and there is an international nuclear energy consortium as well.

Don't see any reason for this comment, but especially the politics of these countries currently can be "dumbed" down to "phrases" in that respect:"caring for the environment is not very important" and "international standards are fine as long as they don't bother us".

I don't want to say that their security standards are miserable, just that you maybe not get information about every incident that is happening.

But again, I miss the reason for this comment - why security standards in developing countries important for this discussion ?

Yes, but in Fukushima what was emitted in the atmosphere was in very low concentrations. Most of the pollution/contamination went in the ground and the sea.

Depending on the direct consequences this has, this could have effect through the food chain on the population (of course not nearly as much as direct contact)

SL1 operators would probably disagree : they died from heavy radiation in a matter of seconds. Besides, ...

Still this does not apply to the fukushima incident (and SL1 operators died of physical trauma, but the radiation would have killed them anyway).

I think you mean that the U235 isotope is found at concentrations less than 1% in U238 uranium ore.

I don't see any reasons why we have to start splitting hairs, but if you insist:I meant that the U235 isotope is found at concentrations less than 1% in uranium ore which also contains (rougly) about 93% of the U238 isotope.

And I guess this is also not 100% correct, but what does this add to the discussion at hand ?

 

[Klumpen]

http://lmgtfy.com/?q=japan+nuclear+waste+disposal

There was a reason why I wanted to hear it from ekianjo.

Waste disposal is not a popular point and you do not hear much about it in the common propaganda

which seems to feed many posts here

and this is a strong one concerning nuclear energy in Japan,

I recently learned it again from some of our japanese customers,

which are quite ashamed, that they never really questioned it.

 

[KickAss]

guys, we are free, anytime, to just agree upon the fact, that none of us actually know a whole lot about:

• the true impact of nuclear power (be it run smoothly or hazardous) on our health
  as its still subject to long term research
• nuclear waste disposal in detail

how about it?

There was a reason why I wanted to hear it from ekianjo. Waste disposal is not a popular point and you do not hear much about it in the common propaganda which seems to feed many posts here and this is a strong one concerning nuclear energy in Japan, I recently learned it again from some of our japanese customers, which are quite ashamed, that they never really questioned it.

i see your point. but ekianjo, for one, is not japanese (as you prolly know). still, i see your point. your internet digging is not necessarily restricted to japanese resources, you know. younger generations of japanese are very well aware of what's going on. if you believe that there's some governmental regime that tries to cover up what's been happening (maybe that's why you are talking about "propaganda" here), im afraid your seriously mistaken. no offence, mate. im just sayin'  

 

[ekianjo]

and this is a strong one concerning nuclear energy in Japan, I recently learned it again from some of our japanese customers, which are quite ashamed, that they never really questioned it.

Sorry, I have no idea about illegal dumping of nuclear waste. The official position of the Japan government is that nuclear waste is stored in a deep geology program, and on top of that some waste may be exported to other countries willing to contract the disposal/storage of such nuclear waste as well.

Now, what is actually happening, who knows? But you can ask the same question about the US, France, India, China, etc... since most of waste disposal is considered classified information (for good reasons, since plutonium could be used for weapons proliferation) it's very difficult to say what is actually occuring.

I meant that the U235 isotope is found at concentrations less than 1% in uranium ore which also contains (rougly) about 93% of the U238 isotope. And I guess this is also not 100% correct, but what does this add to the discussion at hand ?

The reason I corrected you is because your sentence sounded very confusing to someone who would not know anything about the subject:

(and SL1 operators died of physical trauma, but the radiation would have killed them anyway).

Physical trauma caused by heavy radiation.

this could have effect through the food chain on the population (of course not nearly as much as direct contact)

That's why there is a ban on all products harvested in the area, produced on sea and land. That's the right thing to do to contain the contamination.

But again, I miss the reason for this comment - why security standards in developing countries important for this discussion ?

The point I was making is that independent of the political stance of each country on nuclear energy, most nuclear plants follow very similar designs and are produced by the very same companies.

If they would fear nuclear weapons/power (and I doubt that most people can't differentiate) so much, why are they still running one ?

I don't know what you are talking about. Source? Example?

 

[ekianjo]

But even if there would be a reliably source - how is this even measurable - especially worldwide ? There are no special statistics about the sourroundings of a death (like 97 people fell to death during wind turbine construction). And as said before this is traecherous terrain, as this can be expanded into infinity - like I start arguing that nuclear power plants need a lot more "base material" to be constructed then wind turbines (like concrete, steel, etc) which all have their own "footprint"

I could track the source if you give me a few days. How is it measurable? Very simple. You have work related accident, and there are statistics on those work related accidents, and investigations. I don't see what's so extraordinary about that, just like you have very precise numbers for each cancer type in each country. And I think the sources come from America, and since they have one of the largest amount of nuclear plants in the world, these numbers provide a pretty good sample of the worldwide risks.

And as far as I know, these numbers reflect the whole chain of each energy production (i.e. it includes also all the processing and disposal steps of nuclear energy, not just the reactor part).

And if you think about it 2 seconds, it makes perfect sense: nuclear reactors produce huge amounts of energy with very little material, can run for years before a shutdown is needed to refuel, and the rest is just about keeping it running under steady conditions. By comparison, you need way much more manufacturing operations to produce the very same amount of energy with solar, wind, gas, oil or coal. And oil and coal emit particles which can be harmful to lungs and respiratory tracts. Under normal conditions a nuclear reactor does not emit anything but steam.

 

[thatgui]

The reason I corrected you is because your sentence sounded very confusing to someone who would not know anything about the subject:

Maybe thats just my basic understanding of the english language thats kicking in, but I see no real difference between both sentences, except that you added that U235 is also an isotope and abstracted the "weight" (which if find negligible, as mass difference between both isotopes isn't of interest in the scale of natural occuring) - correct me if I'm wrong (honestly, I can't learn from my mistake if no one points them out)

Physical trauma caused by heavy radiation.

I had no prior knowledge of this incident, and I took the easy route and just read the wikipedia (en) article, which mentions " spray of water and steam knocked two operators on the floor" (and another horrible thing) - but thats just me splitting hairs.

That's why there is a ban on all products harvested in the area, produced on sea and land. That's the right thing to do to contain the contamination.

So in the end it was good to evacute a perimter around the plant (maybe not that far, but weather isn't that predictable)? People tend to ignore things they can't recognize with one of their senses. I read a book several years ago from an unkrainian author that visited people in the evacuted zones around Tschernobyl (that came back after some months, or simply didn't leave at all) several times (for some years inbetween) and they soon started to grow things in their gardens again, hunting, etc.

The point I was making is that independent of the political stance of each country on nuclear energy, most nuclear plants follow very similar designs and are produced by the very same companies.

But no one questiond that

I don't know what you are talking about. Source? Example?

What I orginally was trying to tell you was, that you have a conflict in your argumentation. You wrote that nuclear energy is one of the safest possibilties to produce large amounts of energy. But you also wrote that contracts with the goverment are necessary, because no one wants to bear the risks alone - which makes no sense to me, as it can't be both, very safe and too risky for a company to build it alone.

I could track the source if you give me a few days.

I would like that, thanks.

How is it measurable? Very simple. You have work related accident, and there are statistics on those work related accidents, and investigations. I don't see what's so extraordinary about that, just like you have very precise numbers for each cancer type in each country. And I think the sources come from America, and since they have one of the largest amount of nuclear plants in the world, these numbers provide a pretty good sample of the worldwide risks.

But that would need an higher entitiy that deliberatly collects all that data. You may get reliable results about incidents related to nuclear power plants as there aren't many companies that run them. But everything else is just wild guessing with somany big, middle or small sized companies (that itself employ contractors on their own) all along the road (which not all are necessarilly in the same country), this is just an impossible thing to to.

And as far as I know, these numbers reflect the whole chain of each energy production (i.e. it includes also all the processing and disposal steps of nuclear energy, not just the reactor part).

With no country having yet selected an ultimate disposal place, thats very hard to believe.

And if you think about it 2 seconds, it makes perfect sense: nuclear reactors produce huge amounts of energy with very little material, can run for years before a shutdown is needed to refuel, and the rest is just about keeping it running under steady conditions. By comparison, you need way much more manufacturing operations to produce the very same amount of energy with solar, wind, gas, oil or coal. And oil and coal emit particles which can be harmful to lungs and respiratory tracts. Under normal conditions a nuclear reactor does not emit anything but steam.

But you need a lot more manufacturing operations to deal with the nuclear waste afterwards, and evenutally with the deconstruction of a nuclear power plant. That why I'm saying it is totally useless to discuss this, no one can assess everything that is involved.

 

[ekianjo]

But you need a lot more manufacturing operations to deal with the nuclear waste afterwards, and evenutally with the deconstruction of a nuclear power plant. That why I'm saying it is totally useless to discuss this, no one can assess everything that is involved.

Waste disposal and plant dismantlement is not something new that has never been done and we know how much it costs, it's already included in the lifetime budget of all companies operating nuclear plants. You seem to assume companies don't plan for their financial prospects over the next dozens of years. Of course they do, since nuclear plants have several dozens of years of lifetime. 

 

[ekianjo]

With no country having yet selected an ultimate disposal place, thats very hard to believe.

What do you mean exactly? Do you have any concerns about deep geology storage ? It's not like we need to store massive amounts of materials every year.  

Plus, modern reactors working in closed loop produce much less radioactive materials than open ones. 

And Thorium reactors are being developed as well, which should provide cleaner alternatives, too. 

But no one questiond that

Then I am not sure by what you mean about the political aspects. Explain further. 

 

[ekianjo]

I had no prior knowledge of this incident, and I took the easy route and just read the wikipedia (en) article, which mentions " spray of water and steam knocked two operators on the floor" (and another horrible thing) -

You are actually correct, but even if they had not received physical shocks, they would have died in a couple of hours from massive internal organ hemorragia.