Subscribe to Common Dreams News Updates
Most Popular This Week
Popular content
Today's Top News
How Nuclear Apologists Mislead the World Over Radiation
Soon after the Fukushima accident last month, I stated publicly that a nuclear event of this size and catastrophic potential could present a medical problem of very large dimensions. Events have proven this observation to be true despite the nuclear industry's campaign about the "minimal" health effects of so-called low-level radiation. That billions of its dollars are at stake if the Fukushima event causes the "nuclear renaissance" to slow down appears to be evident from the industry's attacks on its critics, even in the face of an unresolved and escalating disaster at the reactor complex at Fukushima.
Proponents of nuclear power – including George Monbiot, who has had a mysterious road-to-Damascus conversion to its supposedly benign effects – accuse me and others who call attention to the potential serious medical consequences of the accident of "cherry-picking" data and overstating the health effects of radiation from the radioactive fuel in the destroyed reactors and their cooling pools. Yet by reassuring the public that things aren't too bad, Monbiot and others at best misinform, and at worst misrepresent or distort, the scientific evidence of the harmful effects of radiation exposure – and they play a predictable shoot-the-messenger game in the process.
To wit:
1) Mr Monbiot, who is a journalist not a scientist, appears unaware of the difference between external and internal radiation
Let me educate him.
The former is what populations were exposed to when the atomic bombs were detonated over Hiroshima and Nagasaki in 1945; their profound and on-going medical effects are well documented. [1]
Internal radiation, on the other hand, emanates from radioactive elements which enter the body by inhalation, ingestion, or skin absorption. Hazardous radionuclides such as iodine-131, caesium 137, and other isotopes currently being released in the sea and air around Fukushima bio-concentrate at each step of various food chains (for example into algae, crustaceans, small fish, bigger fish, then humans; or soil, grass, cow's meat and milk, then humans). [2] After they enter the body, these elements – called internal emitters – migrate to specific organs such as the thyroid, liver, bone, and brain, where they continuously irradiate small volumes of cells with high doses of alpha, beta and/or gamma radiation, and over many years, can induce uncontrolled cell replication – that is, cancer. Further, many of the nuclides remain radioactive in the environment for generations, and ultimately will cause increased incidences of cancer and genetic diseases over time.
The grave effects of internal emitters are of the most profound concern at Fukushima. It is inaccurate and misleading to use the term "acceptable levels of external radiation" in assessing internal radiation exposures. To do so, as Monbiot has done, is to propagate inaccuracies and to mislead the public worldwide (not to mention other journalists) who are seeking the truth about radiation's hazards.
2) Nuclear industry proponents often assert that low doses of radiation (eg below 100mSV) produce no ill effects and are therefore safe. But , as the US National Academy of Sciences BEIR VII report has concluded, no dose of radiation is safe, however small, including background radiation; exposure is cumulative and adds to an individual's risk of developing cancer.
3) Now let's turn to Chernobyl. Various seemingly reputable groups have issued differing reports on the morbidity and mortalities resulting from the 1986 radiation catastrophe. The World Health Organisation (WHO) in 2005 issued a report attributing only 43 human deaths directly to the Chernobyl disaster and estimating an additional 4,000 fatal cancers. In contrast, the 2009 report, "Chernobyl: Consequences of the Catastrophe for People and the Environment", published by the New York Academy of Sciences, comes to a very different conclusion. The three scientist authors – Alexey V Yablokov, Vassily B. Nesterenko, and Alexey V Nesterenko – provide in its pages a translated synthesis and compilation of hundreds of scientific articles on the effects of the Chernobyl disaster that have appeared in Slavic language publications over the past 20 years. They estimate the number of deaths attributable to the Chernobyl meltdown at about 980,000.
Monbiot dismisses the report as worthless, but to do so – to ignore and denigrate an entire body of literature, collectively hundreds of studies that provide evidence of large and significant impacts on human health and the environment – is arrogant and irresponsible. Scientists can and should argue over such things, for example, as confidence intervals around individual estimates (which signal the reliability of estimates), but to consign out of hand the entire report into a metaphorical dustbin is shameful.
Further, as Prof Dimitro Godzinsky, of the Ukranian National Academy of Sciences, states in his introduction to the report: "Against this background of such persuasive data some defenders of atomic energy look specious as they deny the obvious negative effects of radiation upon populations. In fact, their reactions include almost complete refusal to fund medical and biological studies, even liquidating government bodies that were in charge of the 'affairs of Chernobyl'. Under pressure from the nuclear lobby, officials have also diverted scientific personnel away from studying the problems caused by Chernobyl."
4) Monbiot expresses surprise that a UN-affiliated body such as WHOmight be under the influence of the nuclear power industry, causing its reporting on nuclear power matters to be biased. And yet that is precisely the case.
In the early days of nuclear power, WHO issued forthright statements on radiation risks such as its 1956 warning: "Genetic heritage is the most precious property for human beings. It determines the lives of our progeny, health and harmonious development of future generations. As experts, we affirm that the health of future generations is threatened by increasing development of the atomic industry and sources of radiation … We also believe that new mutations that occur in humans are harmful to them and their offspring."
After 1959, WHO made no more statements on health and radioactivity. What happened? On 28 May 1959, at the 12th World Health Assembly, WHO drew up an agreement with the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA); clause 12.40 of this agreement says: "Whenever either organisation [the WHO or the IAEA] proposes to initiate a programme or activity on a subject in which the other organisation has or may have a substantial interest, the first party shall consult the other with a view to adjusting the matter by mutual agreement." In other words, the WHO grants the right of prior approval over any research it might undertake or report on to the IAEA – a group that many people, including journalists, think is a neutral watchdog, but which is, in fact, an advocate for the nuclear power industry. The IAEA's founding papers state: "The agency shall seek to accelerate and enlarge the contribution of atomic energy to peace, health and prosperity through the world."
Monbiot appears ignorant about the WHO's subjugation to the IAEA, yet this is widely known within the scientific radiation community. But it is clearly not the only matter on which he is ignorant after his apparent three-day perusal of the vast body of scientific information on radiation and radioactivity. As we have seen, he and other nuclear industry apologists sow confusion about radiation risks, and, in my view, in much the same way that the tobacco industry did in previous decades about the risks of smoking. Despite their claims, it is they, not the "anti-nuclear movement" who are "misleading the world about the impacts of radiation on human health."
[1] See, for example, WJ Schull, Effects of Atomic Radiation: A Half-Century of Studies from Hiroshima and Nagasaki (New York: Wiley-Lis, 1995) and DE Thompson, K Mabuchi, E Ron, M Soda, M Tokunaga, S Ochikubo, S Sugimoto, T Ikeda, M Terasaki, S Izumi et al. "Cancer incidence in atomic bomb survivors, Part I: Solid tumors, 1958-1987" in Radiat Res 137:S17-S67 (1994).
[2] This process is called bioaccumulation and comes in two subtypes as well, bioconcentration and biomagnification. For more information see: J.U. Clark and V.A. McFarland, Assessing Bioaccumulation in Aquatic Organisms Exposed to Contaminated Sediments, Miscellaneous Paper D-91-2 (1991), Environmental Laboratory, Waterways Experiment Station, Vicksburg, MS and H.A. Vanderplog, D.C. Parzyck, W.H. Wilcox, J.R. Kercher, and S.V. Kaye, Bioaccumulation Factors for Radionuclides in Freshwater Biota, ORNL-5002 (1975), Environmental Sciences Division Publication, Number 783, Oak Ridge National Laboratory, Oak Ridge, TN.
83 Comments so far
Show AllHow can we look at our children and grandchildren without fear and shame? The food we eat, the water we drink, the air we breathe, poisoned.
Don't include me. I committed no crime. It is those who promoted the evils, knowing there dangers, are to blame.
Nonetheless, if we do nothing, we too are to blame.
rat4...It is exactly that kind of thinking that got us here - "don't blame me, blame the other guy". Anyone who voted dem/repub, anyone who participates in the economy - that probably includes all of us - is complicit. And let us not forget the complicity of many universities that push any 'scientific' development without regard to the harm that might result.
NADER is the only 'candidate' who has consistently opposed nuclear power - and he did it when nukes were thought to be answer and would bring us electricity that was so inexpensive that it would not have to be metered.
In the 1970s NADER came to Cape May NJ to help us protest the plan to build a floating nuclear plant in the ocean off the coast of Atlantic City. He did that at his own expense, with no fan fare................
Of all people, the Japanese should have known better.
I heard Monbiot state that only 43 deaths could be attributed to Chernobyl, as if it were a simple, undisputed fact. It's a purely narcissistic thing to assert ...
realizing that the higher figures Caldicott cites explode the myth of nuclear safety, he simply insists no study exists indicating the official figure of 43 is false.
Duh! anybody who sticks to that story is nuts, I remember all the guy's standing on the edge of the reactor shoveling sand into it, All the pilots flying helicopters less than 100ft above the exposed core. 43 dead? please. There where 100s of civilian and military who gave their lives to put out the fires. And re-enclose the reactor. Certinally there all dead of exposure by now.
>^^<
Having been thoroughly disgusted by the Democracy Now 'debate' referenced in this article, I am glad to read Caldicott's rebuttal. Monbiot has no credibility and now appears to be shilling for the nuclear power industry. He used the "conspiracy theorist" ad hominem attack against Caldicott, a pathetic effort that he used previously against those who questioned the official conspiracy theory about 9/11.
Yes ! , Watching that debate on Democracy Now ! , was not long enough,so I'm glad to read this rebuttal from Helen Caldicott. I used to like George Monbiot,until I saw that debate,he was such a disappointment, believing such non-sense about nuclear power(waste) I mean, where is his allegiance to the common person ?
Some of the people who are downplaying the dangers of nuclear power are motivated in part by the demonstrated dangers of coal-burning. Yes, coal-burning kills as well. It spreads mercury and carcinogenic materials in the environment. It contributes significantly to global warming. It too, is a bad bargain, attacking our land and our lungs.
But that does not mean that nuclear power is a better bargain. They both have considerable downsides, if that is an appropriate word to signify 'will incur human deaths'.
There is nothing that says we need all the power we are using (and wasting), except a senile attachment to a way of life that is killing us. Surely we can reduce our power consumption and move to alternative power sources. It will be difficult, but it will not happen without trying. Some places try harder than others.
http://www.triplepundit.com/2011/04/heat-sewage-paris-energy/
Here in the US, we seem to be trying not at all.
And Caldicott has repeatedly pointed out that the enormous amount of electricity required to run nuclear plants is often provided by coal, which further compounds the problems of nuclear power and makes the nuclear vs. coal debate rather a non-issue.
I've been waiting a month now to hear something from Dr. Caldicott about the tragedy in Japan. This fine woman knows her stuff and has been fighting against the growth of nuclear power industry for years. She fights for your children and mine. She fights for the planet. Far too often, she fights alone. Thank you, CD for posting this article and please bring us more from Dr. Caldicott. She is every bit a hero in my book.
Your first sentence could have come straight out of my mouth. You may be familiar with one of Caldicott's websites, ifyoulovethisplanet.org, in which she interviews various people and talks about important topics. It was there that I first heard her thoughts on Fukushima, etc. More than worth a listen, as it's a very informative radio-style program.
Monbiot is a fool. Sadly, Dr. Lovelock's excellent work on the concept of Gaia has allowed his own idiocy about nuclear power to influence people like Monbiot, while at the same time damaging his credibility and his ideas about Gaia.
I suggest Monbiot prove his dedication to nuclear by helping the clean up effort at Fukishima.
And, just to point out, this Monbiot character, who has no scientific training, is the same idiot attacking the peer reviewed science around 911, where we have direct evidence of planted explosive devices in the WTC.
I agree with you, until your so called 'science' and your 'peer reviewed' evidence of planted explosive devices in the WTC. 9-11 was no inside job, look at the real evidence, not what David Ray Griffin says is scientific, read the internal records, and National Geographic Society did a show about the 9-11 conspiracies, and proved them to be false claims,and also 'Skeptical Inquiry' magazine had put out a issue about 9-11, so-called cover ups, and they also found No Evidence of a cover-up. Many Scientist from around the world,have study the 9-11 attack on the twin towers,and they also found No Evidence of "planted explosives" anywhere,and by the way,it would take Months to rig explosives in Skyscrapers that big.
Ever heard of Bob Loblaw?
blah blah blah blah blah blah
blah blah blah blahh blah
bla bla blahh....
Zoey
You certainly are free to believe the fairy tale put forth by the Bush/Cheney administration concerning the events of what had occurred on the morning of Sept. 11, 2001. but despite your desire to rip apart David Ray Griffin, one discovers, if one has any pretense of an open mind, that Dr. Griffin simply eviscerated those claims of "proof" that have been made by the so-called experts in his extremely well analyzed book Debunking 9/11 Debunking: An Answer to Popular Mechanics and Other Defenders of the Official Conspiracy Theory. As former Assistant Secretary of the U.S. Treasury during the Reagan Administration Paul Craig Roberts notes in a blurb to the book:
"Professor Griffin is the nemesis of the 9/1 cover-up. This new book destroys the credibility of the NIST and Popular Mechanics reports and annihilates his critics."
In a book which was edited by David Ray Griffin and Peter Dale Scott, academics such as Richard Falk, scientists and former members of the Bush-Cheney administration such as Morgan Reynolds suggest the possibility that 9/11 was a false flag operation designed to further the goals of the neoconservatives in the book 9/11 and American Empire: Intellectuals Speak Out. But the last thing that the corporate media and the government desire is that an honest discussion about the events of 9/11/01 should ever take place in the United States.
Sorry, zoey-- you've been hoodwinked by "high production value" teevee.
Yes, there is a lot of preposterous nonsense swirling around out there about the 9/11 events. Much of it was deliberately created, disseminated, and perpetuated for disinformation and misinformation purposes to discredit the 9/11 Truth movement.
But the "debunking" NOVA, National Geographic, and Popular Mechanics programs were carefully produced to fool the under-informed, low-skeptic viewer, and to give the seal of pop-culture approval to "trutherphobes" and complacent Normals looking for an easy, convenient appeal to authority.
These programs have themselves been vetted and deconstructed, and shown to be riddled with straw arguments and as full of holes as a Swiss cheese.
The same thing happened with the JFK assassination, in the form of ponderous tomes that claimed to have definitively refuted skeptics and proved the Warren Commission's inane Lone Nut and Magic Bullet hypotheses.
Few actually read the "debunking" books, which are held together with spit and rusty baling wire. But they had enough superficial "heft" and authority to convince people who never actually read them that they must be true.
It's not that hard to definitively claim to have discovered "No Evidence!" of something if one is only pretending to look for evidence in the first place.
I am tired of people not doing their homework and simply lying about the science. Here is the peer reviewed paper that has been around now for over 1.5 years, and has not been challenged in the scientific community:
http://bit.ly/giOtDy
READ IT. If you care to respond via the scientific method, please do. Lets not forget that over 1500 architects, scientists, and engineers have stated publicly via ae911truth.org that the official story is nonsense.
Monbiot is a part of the moonbat crowd that lies and distorts the science around 911.
"http://bit.ly/giOtDy"
Should have searched more. Plenty of aluminum from those remote piloted airplanes burned and mixed with the steel of the structural beams.
BTW, shaped charges work a lot better for severing steel beams.
Oh, this is so good, nanothermites at an atomic level. Remind me, I forget, which movie that was from....
Before dissing the possibility of any inside work on the Twin Towers, you should rent and watch the movie "Man on Wire". It is the true story of a small group of people, many of whom did not even speak English, who snuck into the Towers with hundreds and hundreds of pounds of cables and other equipment, and streched a cable from the top of one tower to the next, all completely undetected (so that a high wire walker could walk from one Tower to the next.)
Think of how much easier it would be for the owners of the Towers or the CIA to do ANYTHING from the inside.
"small group of people, who snuck into the Towers, and streched a cable from the top of one tower to the next, all complete"
Well, makes sense. They weren't government employees...
So glad to see Caldicott's refutation of Monbiot's nonsense. He lost all credibility with me in the Democracy Now debate and I will never read another of his articles. If that's the best the Guardian has to offer in the way of environmental lefties, I shall think twice about reading *any* of their stuff on the environment.
Furthermore, his pompous ass way of conducting the argument in the face of Caldicott's justified excitement over his neglect of the facts makes him just another face of corporate power.
Just glad there are more knowledgeable people around to refute his errors.
I agree. Monbiot's whole premise wasn't really based on whether nuclear power was good or bad but rather that coal was worse. Caldicott wasn't defending coal, she was critiquing nuclear energy based on years of experience as as doctor, researcher and activist. The "debate" was flawed from the get-go. Montbiot was engaging in his version of the "lesser evil" argument. This just exposes how un-radical (i.e. liberal) his thinking is. This debate of coal vs nuclear obscures the fact that no significant progress (is even being proposed let alone constructed) is being made on getting us off non-renewable energy in the halls of power in the US . Neither nuclear nor coal is an "alternative" we should accept.
Interesting discussion with Leuren Moret on global radioactive dispersion:
http://www.t-room.us/2011/04/leuren-moret-coverup-california-northwest-usa-bc-canada-under-radiation-threat-as-high-as-japan-by-alfred-webre/
Introduction to the video discussion:
Leuren Moret – Coverup – California Northwest USA BC Canada under radiation threat as high as Japan by Alfred Webre
Posted by helen
"Independent scientist Leuren Moret, MA, PhD (ABT) has stated in an exclusive April 4, 2011 interview with reporter Alfred Lambremont Webre that the effects of the tectonic nuclear war against the populations and breadbaskets of North America (Canada, United States, Hawaii, and Mexico) are being intentionally covered up by the administrations of Barack Obama in the United States and Prime Minister Stephen Harper in Canada.
The radiation effect of this false flag global radiation war intensified this week as radiation maps produced by the Norwegian Institute for Air Research (NILU) now confirm that the Midwest of the United States, all of California, the states of Oregon and Washington and the western part of Canada are under a radiation threat with radiation levels as high as that in Japan in areas adjacent to the six units of the Fukushima nuclear power plant that started in melt-down on March 11, 2011."
"the effects of the tectonic nuclear war against the populations ...."
And that gentlemen is why some people totally lose credibility and are considered wingnuts....
Where do find these websites?
Thank you Helen Caldicott for your brief but poignant analysis. Nuclear fission energy is a horrible way to generate electriciy.
TEPCO is a private corporation. They do not allow government oversight nor do they share data. Their decisions will be made in the interests of economics, not humanity. We must bring TEPCO and other nuclear corporations to heel.
The pejorative term "moonbat"-- the wingnut put-down term for left-wingers popular a few years back-- was supposedly derived from the name "Monbiot".
I have no idea whether this is accurate, or just a typical mythical folk etymology.
But it's ironic that over time, Monbiot has proved to be something of a moonbat after all.
Dr. Caldicott accurately argues that radiation loose in the environment is a health hazard. Where she goes wrong is the suggestion that the power industry is proposing to build the reactors that were designed in the past, and which have proven to be problematic. Nobody is suggesting building another GE Mark I or a Russian-design open-box machine as was in Chernobyl. All that is obsolete. Personally, I think those old machines should be dismantled. The modern designs are self-regulating, use no coolant water, do not even use steam, and use no dampener rods or other mechanical devices that can foul up in unanticipated ways.
The self-regulating reactor contains the fissile material and the regulating medium all inside one casing, as a small sphere about the size of a tennis ball. These "pebbles" generate heat, and are stacked inside the "core" through which a gas such as helium is passed; the heated gas is directed to the turbine and produces power. If you want to shut down such a "pebble bed reactor" all you do is remove the pebbles, from a drop device in the bottom (a "rotary gate"). Admittedly, the "energy density" is not at the level of the boiling-water reactor, but hey, you have done away with all the complexities that jam up and fail in unnerving sequences. These reactors generate plenty of power and are specifically designed to be inherently stable.
You are not going to get "radiation emissions" and clouds of contaminants spewing from such a machine, the way you may well from a boiling-water plant. Dr. Caldicott does not seem to want to appreciate this.
On a positive note, outside this discussion, I mention that liquid fuels consumption (gasoline) has dropped 3% year-on-year now that gasoline has reached a retail pricing of about $4 per gallon.
I just learned yesterday that one feature of the new nuclear power plant designs is making the containment buildings partly out of ice. I am not kidding. They are much weaker than the old concrete and steel designs, as you would imagine. The design includes big nets full of block ice. The idea is it will keep things cool if things only partly get out of hand. I am not making this up!
Look up "ice condenser containment" and see for yourself. A lot of really crazy stuff has been going on under the radar, largely unreported in the corporate media.
Personally, I would be surprised if any "old-style" power plants ever receive either an operating license or authority from a State Regulator to open. The experience of New York with the Shoreham (Long Island) plant would not inspire much confidence in the idea that an old-design plant is going anywhere (that one was completely built and ordered dismantled by the Governor prior to start-up).
Decommissioning and "disposal" is technically feasible, it is just not politically feasible. For this reason, old plants continue to run, and those that shut down are left in situ. That is not a good technical solution; it comes from the uninformed shouting at the hysterical. You spend billions building a low-level waste repository and then the politicians make sure nobody gets to use it. Insane? Of course. I remind you that low-level waste can easily be vitrified and the glass blocks stored for the decay cycle of the spent material, where material is not recycled.
The "lying" of the industry was not done by the physicists; that was done by the "managers," the MBA crowd that in succeeding generations has migrated to Goldman Sachs. You do have to keep in mind that pond-scum, by its nature, is lying deceiving manipulative pond-scum, wherever you find it. Should the pond-scum be strung up? Probably; also an eminently good solution for that on Wall Street. Lying scum is lying scum; don't tar the nuclear engineers with with the lies perpetrated by the "managers." The engineers are not liars. They are perfectly decent guys who will tell you the straight dope, and help you evaluate the risks and benefits. Ultimately, the public makes the choice on how it wants to go. If you want to go to coal and oil, then that is society's collective choice. However, that also has societal (external) costs attached.
wolfgang, it would've been nice if you had referenced this new design of reactor that you are describing. What is it, who's designing it, how realistic is this thing? I can't help but be skeptical whenever I hear someone tout a new design of nuclear power that can do "away with all the complexities that jam up and fail in unnerving sequences." This is always said with the same hubris used in describing the past designs which have ultimately failed. Are you telling us that there is no way that the fissile material could contaminate the earth and/or living organisms if it was somehow exposed? There will always be unforeseen circumstances that could compromise this reactor -- why do we need to gamble with such long-lasting poison?
I have avoided getting too technical in this Column simply because the audience here tends not to have any physics or engineering background or even appreciation, so it is a bit like whistling in the wind; nobody much hears you anyway. Try a wikkipedia search for "pebble bed reactor" to get the gist of the design. The design is quite "realistic" and at this writing the Chinese are already building two very large units; it will be the selected Chinese power system, replacing coal plants. the Chinese plan to develop the pebble-bed as another engineering export (and they will predictably be quite successful).
The only possibility that I see for contamination by fissile material would be the cracking and breaking of an individual pebble. A pebble is just that - a clump abut the size of a tennis ball. The remedial effort would be to encapsulate the broken pebble. You are not looking at a lot of material, in any event. Keep in mind that since the reactor is not pressurized and requires no coolant, the material inside is not liable to "burning" or "explosion" or any of the other problems that we have seen in such spectacular fashion in Japan.
The reason that the pebble-bed design is not "hubris" is that it has a lower power density than a boiling-water plant, so while you extract a lower amount of power out of the machine, you are not extracting power in a way that invites system failure.
Actually, many of us on these forums are scientists. Don't be such an elitist prick.
In a perfect world where capitalism wasn't destroying the planet and millions of species were not at risk of extinction, and corporations behaved like saints and actually cared about the environment, and would be responsible about nuclear waste, and managers would not regularly lie about nuclear accidents, and a thousand other reasons i won't list, then I might agree with you.
The arrogance and stupidity of engineers and scientists never ceases to amaze me.
Seemingly, the culmination of your intellectual contributions is to shout out that someone else is "a prick."
Devolving the discussion forum to vulgarisms is not productive, and is reflective of a rather nasty mentality that is probably best ignored.
Placing "mala" in your "code name" rather does say it all. Just lovely.
"Hughnanimous," hiding behind a code name, is an open and notorious vulgarian. His just lovely posts you will find scattered about in these columns, all using ugly profanities, vulgarisms, and denigrating comments. He has a congenital inability to be civil. Readers are best advised to ignore him.
Malatesta comes from Errico Malatesta, so read up on your history and humanities:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Errico_Malatesta
Apologies, "elitist prick" is a kind of expression used to describe the smug and arrogant. I should have just said "smug" and "arrogant".
The fact that you completely ignore the social, political and economic analysis of nuclear power is what most scientists do. I urge you to read Chris Hedges article just below this one on the front page. It describes people that bow to corporate authority because they have been "educated" to do so.
Unfortunately, many scientists are one dimensional beings that lack the ability to see beyond their training. This is the point that has to be made. This is the point that you seem incapable of grasping.
Malatesta1936 remains a true vulgarian, defining anyone he disagrees with as, interchangeably, a "prick" or "smug" or "arrogant." What a lovely fellow, best to be ignored. Truly cultured and refined.
You seem to be a very honest guy - previous posts regarding the F-1 debacle were pretty much on target, and you tried to educate the unitiated - very commendable. But you don't seem to recognize the inherent bias in anyone whose income depends on a risky venture - it's human nature to wear those rose-colored glasses when you want to justify your own job - lifestyle - belief-system - whatever.
Everything in life is risky, to some extent. But playing with radionuclides is deadly - so many accidents, so much needless suffering - and for what? To provide more electricity than anyone needs? To encourage people to live in places they don't belong (at least not in such high numbers) - or encourage people to have more children than their planet can support? To pretend we can have infinite growth on a finite planet? To kick the can down the road?
The whole fascist ideology is faulty - it's the same today as it was in Nazi Germany. The same people - the most vulnerable, most powerless - end up with the short stick. This isn't about the qualifications (in their field) of scientists or engineers - as you have noted, it is about business management. And that means externalizing expenses - making people believe they're getting a free lunch - party now and pay later. You have to be a realist - you have to assume that Murphy was indeed an optimist. You have to give up your nuclear dream, just like so many other people have to give up their 'American Dream' because what they want is not sustainable.
Please don't take this personally - it isn't about YOU specifically, but about human nature. Without soaring optimism, the species could not survive - bad things always happen to someone else. The 'worst case scenario' in business NEVER considers even moderate risk (that's just unimaginable). (Unfortunately, the War Department uses 'worst case scenarios' to bolster their own careers, and corporate - fascist - businesses take advantage of the opportunity.)
We don't have a sustainable society - we don't have responsible leaders - we don't have conscientious businessmen - and we're not exactly over-run with civic-minded citizens. We have to figure out how to live in a world that's totally out of control - or at least marginallly controlled by the worst possible people with the worst possible motives. That's scary enough in itself, without adding something as deadly as radiation to the picture. The chemical and fossil-fuel industries have already poisoned our soil, our water, and our air - we need to rein them in, not add another layer to this mountain of misery.
We need to shut down the old nuclear power plants - and NOT build any new ones - because humans are not mature enough to handle anything that deadly. Hell, look at the pollution already around us - better to clean that up, and stop the madness (of Wall Street mafiosos) - maybe THEN we can look again at the nuclear question. But not until we resolve the problems we have today, in dealing with toxic residues. Hell, all of us have deadly poisons in our bodies - the gift that keeps on giving - thanks to 'modern' living. So please stop dreaming - and start living in the real world - while you still can. Work for honest, responsible, responsive government - without that, every 'business' venture is fraught with ugly - and deadly - consequences for the most vulnerable (and not just human) on this planet.
It is unclear what you are referencing when you observe that persons with an "income" from a risky venture are wearing rose-colored glasses. I draw no income from the nuclear power industry. I trust you were not inferencing a bias of mine. I have no bias in the matter. If you want to draw your electricity from hydraulic structures in Canada then that is fine with me also. I am intellectually indifferent to this [Note that "indifferent" is distinct from "not caring."]
That said, I am not in favor of operating old-style plants (boiling water and pressurized water). My reasons are strictly technical: the plants were designed based on a particular set of engineering parameters, specifically so many years of exposure of the metal to bombardment, and the internal metals can be expected to have become brittle. Ultimately, it will fail. Those plants do not do well in failure (we have all had a taste of that). Do they run? Sure. Can they continue to run? Sure. Are they continuing to get closer to the point where some criticality is going to break? Yup.
And therein lies the problem, in my view: these old plants were set up to run for a finite life-span, whatever it was in the individual case. Now the plants have "changed hands" and the new buyers want to get a return on capital, so they go in and ask for "re-licensing." In my view that is a dubious idea. You can study the plant and its structures and conclude with some confidence that it is going to hold together, but that presumes that there is no lurking Achilles Heel in there that is going to fail precipitously and bring you to grief. It also assumes that, in the event of failure, the various containment schemes are going to do the job. We have seen that that is not quite the case.
I disagree that the engineers that design and run power plants are not mature enough to handle fissile material. While I have met individuals that were immature, they work in an environment where poor behavioral impulses are controlled by the workplace environment. Collectively, I would say that these plants are safe to operate - within the parameters of their original design and lifespans. As far as people with evil motives, I remain much more concerned about unpaid former Soviet officers and the huge stockpile of warheads scattered about behind the old Iron Curtain. The temptation for bribery to have one "disappear" is seriously scary.
I am not even a fan of "nuclear power." That said, you do have to recognize that each form of power production contains its own problems. The Canadians built huge dams in Northern Quebec and displaced the native peoples, with substantial social costs. The capital tied up in those dams cannot be used for other purposes, including building housing for families with children sleeping in cars and in tents. Nobody has the money to transport electricity from wind farms in North Dakota; wind farms in Pennsylvania have been found to kill substantial numbers of bats, which each insects that would cause other problems. The whole picture is more nuanced than just saying "No more reactors."
Is the stability of a self-regulating reactor like stability of self-regulating market forces? I am so reassured.
Your commentary reflects a lack of engineering background, and mandates no response. The people on Wall Street are bums; engineers are not bums.
O.K. lets build them in your neighborhood. Would you live near one? Uh, huh. Thought so. You know you would not want to be anywhere near one of the new reactors.
Engineering is not prefect. Murphy lurks. Disasters happen. Then the engineers say: "we did not think that possible."
Let us put our money into solar, wind, etc. It is safer, and type I.
Don't jump to conclusions when you have no information. Actually, I live right next door to a current (largely obsolete) power complex. It consists of one built by GE, one by Westinghouse, and one by Babcock and Wilcox. These are "conventional" water plants. I am not happy about it, yet the plants, while aged, are producing probably some 2/3 of the State's power. See, here lies the problem: everything in the US is "one-off." There are no "standardized" reactors. So there is no "learning curve" such as you have in France, where one standard reactor design has been selected. I would be quite happy to have them dismantled and the pebble-bed design put up. I anticipate it will not happen for money reasons, at least not right away.
"Wind" in the current iteration is not sustainable; the entire wind-power industry is viable only due to massive subsidies. remember these are not the Dutch windmill designs; these are towers with propellors and a raised direct-coupled generator. Sure, the wind is free; the propellor and generator is not. Instead of building one generator, you are building thousands of generators, each of which consumes resources. You also have the shipping (of the electricity) problem. While electricity can be shipped as a solid, without wires, by rail, the current system involves more towers and cables. All that consumes large quantities of capital and resources, which is left out of the discussion.
"Solar" has its own problems, including that of energy density. If you build a solar tower with focussing lenses, or a trench boiler with a focusing lens, you consume large amounts of land, not available in urban areas, so you still have to ship the power. Also the removal of the heat from the land implies a change in the life-support for fauna below; the removal of the sunlight implies changes to the flora below. It is not a harm-free technology. If you want to go to "solar panels" on the rooftops, then remember that you still have storage and energy-density issues, and you have large consumption of resources to build these low-energy devices. All of that productive burden also falls on the planet, albeit indirectly. these trade-offs are not that simple, and are not amenable to strident sloganeering.
"Hughnanimous," hiding his identity, is a true vulgarian; see his posts elsewhere. Persons engaging in this dialogue are best advised to ignore him.
Wolfgang, since i don't know you personally i can't judge whether you are one of those this article addresses ("Nuclear Apologists Mislead the World") or simply haven't grasped what you have read about pebble bed reactors or plants currently being built or proposed. Every proposed new nuclear plant listed at http://www.nrc.gov/reactors/new-reactors/col.html is a boiling water reactor, none are pebble bed designs. Furthermore, pebble bed reactors are NOT as safe as you claim - i won't quote every page but just google "pebble bed reactor criticism". Also they produce a greater volume of nuclear waste which we still can't store safely.
A brief list of the misleading statements in your post:
- "The modern designs are self-regulating, use no coolant water, do not even use steam, and use no dampener rods or other mechanical devices that can foul up in unanticipated ways". Every proposed new nuclear plant listed at http://www.nrc.gov/reactors/new-reactors/col.html is a boiling water reactor, none are pebble bed designs. From what i can tell they all use coolant water. They all use mechanical devices which can fail. Some have passive systems to deal with accidents - "ESBWR can remain stabilized for 72 hours without any operator action". After 72 hours all bets are off and it is back to humans trying to control a disaster.
- "If you want to shut down such a "pebble bed reactor" all you do is remove the pebbles, from a drop device in the bottom (a "rotary gate")." You make it sound so simple and safe. It's not. from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pebble_bed_reactor#Criticisms_of_the_reactor_design "an accident in Germany in 1986, which involved a jammed pebble damaged by the reactor operators when they were attempting to dislodge it from a feeder tube (see THTR-300 section). This accident released radiation into the surrounding area, and probably was one reason for the shutdown of the research program by the West German government."
- "You are not going to get "radiation emissions" and clouds of contaminants spewing from such a machine, the way you may well from a boiling-water plant"
Pebble bed reactors create radioactive dust just by the movement of the pebbles. Obviously this would create radiation emissions and clouds of contaminants spewing from a reactor broken open by any number of possible causes, accidental (plane crash, earthquake) or intended by sabotage.
The german pebble bed reactor is the highest contaminated nuclear installation worldwide! from: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AVR_reactor
Concerning beta-contamination AVR is the highest contaminated nuclear installation worldwide as AVR management confirmed 2001 [2]. Some contamination was also found in soil/groundwater under the reactor, as the German government confirmed[citation needed] in January, 2010. Thus the reactor vessel was filled in 2008 with light concrete in order to fix the radioactive dust and in 2012 the reactor vessel of 2100 metric tons will be transported about 200 meters by air-cushion sled and seven cranes to an intermediate storage. There exists currently no dismantling method for the AVR vessel, but it is planned to develop some procedure during the next 60 years and to start with vessel dismantling at the end of the century. In the meantime, after transport of the AVR vessel into the intermediate storage, the reactor buildings will be dismantled and soil and groundwater will be decontaminated. Fuel removal out of AVR was difficult and lasted 4 years. During this procedure it became obvious that the AVR bottom reflector was broken; in its crack about 200 fuel pebbles remain captured. AVR dismantling costs will exceed its construction costs by far. AVR was the basis of the technology licensed to China to build HTR-10.
ok i have to get back to the day's tasks
I am fully aware of the German situation. I remind you that nothing built is going to be immune to abuse by stupidity. The "jammed pebble" was being dislodged by slamming an iron rod into the pile. Sure enough, that caused a "pebble" to crack. What else would you expect?
I rather doubt that the German machine is "the highest contaminated reactor in the world;" the quote is absurd. I can think of four machines in Japan that would challenge that status. The reaction of the German government to the pebble-bed dislodging incident had zippo to do with "science" and everything to do with pandering to the "Greens," a potent political force in the German system of parliamentary government. The Greens have the ability to bring down the Government by precipitating a "no-confidence vote," a peculiarity of the parliamentary system. So to avoid a parliamentary crisis, the government simply does whatever the Greens have as a sticking-point demand - in this case, the encapsulation and dismantling of the machine. This was hardly a rational decision.
Finally, modern pebble-bed designs do not use the German "gate" system used in that one machine. Nor do today's pebbles generate "dust" by rubbing; they are encased in a smooth and hard material. Think of them a big ball bearings.
Finally, I am not a "nuclear apologist," as you might suggest. I am entirely indifferent to society's use, or discard, of this technology. The technology was intended to meet a specific demand: for high energy density in power production. It does that quite well. So do other technologies; I shall describe my experiences in touring a power plant in Nebraska in another posting.
Your comment proclaiming that my sharing thoughts on power plants is some form of "Psywar Psyops" is both nonsense and denigrating, as well as just plain rude. Your declaration that what I suggest is a "stinking load of crap" is shockingly vulgar. I do think this says quite a bit about your person. To say that you disappoint would be a mild reproach.
Nor is what you say remotely based in reality. My thoughts on the "ultimate power plant" are described above in my observations of the Plant located in Columbus, Nebraska, to which I invite other readers here to view and contemplate. I do not invite "Hughnanimous" to read it; I do not write for vulgarians.