In recent years, a growing number of environmentalists have taken a new look at the safety record and benefits of nuclear energy.
"Environmental opposition to nuclear energy is the greatest misunderstanding and mistake of the century..."
We need nuclear power, says the man who inspired the Greens. "We reject nuclear energy with the same unreasoning arguments that our ancestors would have used to reject geothermal energy, the effort to harness the heat of the Earth. Compared with the imaginary dangers of nuclear power, the threat from the intensifying greenhouse effect seems all too real. I wholly support the Green wish to see all energy eventually come from renewable sources but I do not think that we have the time to wait until this happens. Nuclear power is unpopular but it is safer than power from fossil fuel. The worst that could happen, if Chernobyls become endemic, is that we live a little less long in a mildly radioactive world. To me this is preferable to the loss of our hard-won civilization in a greenhouse catastrophe. "
- James Lovelock, preeminent world leader in the development of environmental consciousness.
Is it time to learn to Love Atomic Energy?
By Dr. James Lovelock, Author of the GAIA theory
… The fear of nuclear energy is understandable through its association in the mind with the horrors of nuclear warfare, but it is unjustified; nuclear power plants are not bombs. What at first was a proper concern for safety has become a near pathological anxiety and much of the blame for this goes to the news media, the television and film industries, and fiction writers. All these have used the fear of things nuclear as a reliable prop to sell their wares. They, and the political disinformers who sought to discredit the nuclear industry as potential enemies, have been so successful at frightening the public that it is now impossible in many nations to propose a new nuclear power plant.
No source of power is entirely safe, even windmills are not free of fatal accidents, and Bruno Comby's fine book gives a true and balanced account of the great benefits and small risks of nuclear power. I wholeheartedly agree with him and I want to put it to you that the dangers of continuing to burn fossil fuels (oil, gas, coal) as our main energy source are far greater and they threaten not just individuals but civilization itself. Much of the first world behaves like an addicted smoker: we are so used to burning fossil fuels for our needs that we ignore their insidious long-term dangers.
Polluting the atmosphere with carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases has no immediate consequences, but continued pollution leads to climate changes whose effects are only apparent when it is almost too late for a cure. Carbon dioxide poisons the environment just as salt can poison us. No harm comes from a modest intake, but a daily diet with too much salt can cause a lethal quantity to accumulate in the body.
We need to distinguish between things that are directly harmful to people, and things that harm indirectly by damaging our habitat the Earth.
Bubonic plague in the Middle Ages was directly harmful, caused immense personal agony and killed thirty percent of Europeans, but it was a small threat to civilization and of no consequence for the Earth itself. The burning of carbon fuels and the conversion of natural ecosystems to farmland cause no immediate harm to people but slowly impair the Earth's capacity to self-regulate and sustain, as it has always done, a planet fit for life. Although nothing we do will destroy life on Earth, we could change the environment to a point where civilization is threatened.
Sometime in this or the next century we may see this happen because of climate change and a rise in the level of the sea. If we go on burning fossil fuel at the present rate, or at an increasing rate, it is probable that all of the cities of the world now at sea level will beflooded. Try to imagine the social consequences of hundreds of millions of homeless refugees seeking dry land on which to live. In the turmoil, they may look back and wonder how humans could have been so foolish as to bring so much misery upon themselves by the thoughtless burning of carbon fuels. They may then reflect regretfully that they could have avoided their miseries by the safe benefice of nuclear energy.
Nuclear power, although potentially harmful to people, is a negligible danger to the planet. Natural ecosystems can stand levels of continuous radiation that would be intolerable in a city. The land around the failed Chernobyl power station was evacuated because its high radiation intensity made it unsafe for people, but this radioactive land is now rich in wildlife, much more so than neighboring populated areas. We call the ash from nuclear power nuclear waste and worry about its safe disposal. I wonder if instead we should use it an an incorruptible guardian of the beautiful places of the Earth. Who would dare cut down a forest in which was the storage place of nuclear ash?
Such is the extent of nuclear anxiety that even scientists seem to forget our planet's radioactive history. It seems almost certain that a supernova event occurred close in time and space to the origin of our solar system.
A supernova is the explosion of a large star. Astrophysicists speculate that this fate may overtake stars more than three times as large as the Sun. As a star burns - by fusion - its store of hydrogen and helium, the ashes of the fire accumulate at the centre, in the form of heavier elements like silicon and iron. If this core of dead elements, which are no longer able to generate heat and pressure, should much exceed the mass of our own sun then the inexorable force of its own weight will cause its collapse in a matter of seconds to a body no larger than 18 miles (30 kilometers) in diameter but still as heavy as a star. We have here, in the death throes of a large star, all the ingredients for a vast nuclear explosion. A supernovae, at its peak, produces stupendous amounts of heat, light and hard radiations, about as much as the total produced by all the other stars in the same galaxy.
Explosions are never one hundred percent efficient. When a star ends as a supernova, the nuclear explosive material, which includes uranium and plutonium, together with large amounts of iron and other burnt-out elements, scatters in space, as does the dust cloud of a hydrogen bomb test.
Perhaps the strangest thing about the Earth is that it formed from lumps of fall-out from a star-sized nuclear bomb. This is why even today there is still enough uranium left in the Earth's crust to reconstitute on a minute scale the original event.
There is no other credible explanation of the great quantity of unstable elements still present. The most primitive and old-fashioned Geiger counter will indicate that we stand on the fall-out of a vast ancient nuclear explosion. Within our bodies, half a million atoms, rendered unstable in that event, still erupt every minute, releasing a tiny fraction of the energy stored from that fierce fire of long ago.
Life began nearly four billion years ago under conditions of radioactivity far more intense than those that trouble the minds of certain present-day environmentalists. Moreover, there was neither oxygen nor ozone in the air so that the fierce unfiltered ultra-violet radiation of the sun irradiated the surface of the Earth. We need to keep in mind the thought that these fierce energies flooded the very womb of life.
I hope that it is not too late for the world to emulate France and make nuclear power our principal source of energy. There is at present no other safe, practical and economic substitute for the dangerous practice of burning carbon fuels.
- Preface to the book Environmentalists For Nuclear Energy
by Bruno Comby
Green Cross International president, Mikhail Gorbachev warns that closing down nuclear plants would cause chaos:
...former USSR president and Nobel Peace Prize winner, Mikhail Gorbachev, reiterated that he is in favor of using nuclear energy and warned of the chaotic situation that would result from closing down nuclear power plants. “I was a witness to the Chernobyl accident, but despite the dangers, I do not agree with those who argue against nuclear energy. How would countries like Japan and France survive without nuclear energy?”, said the “perestroika” pioneer. Gorbachev described nuclear energy as “a very important source of energy" and calls for measures to ensure that plants are safe and well-protected, while also expressing disappointment about the current passiveness regarding the search for funding to develop alternative energies. “But the funding is found for wars”, he remarked sarcastically. Gorbachev also explained that the fact that he defends nuclear energy does not mean he is not sensitive to environmental issues and mentioned that renowned “green” British leaders agree with him on this matter.
Energy and Sustainable Development - Barcelona 2004
Environmentalists For Nuclear Energy
Safe Nuclear Energy: www.AmericanEnergyIndependence.com/safenuclear.html
Full Version: Pro-Nuclear Energy is a Progressive Cause
Common Ground Common Sense > Issues that Affect Our Lives > Energy Independence, Environment, Science and Technology > Energy, Environment, Science and Technology Issues Archive
How toxic is Nuclear Radiation?
"The direct radiation effect is the one thing that is different about nuclear material, as compared to other toxins, which may be the source of some of the fear and mystique. All other toxins require ingestion or inhalation for harm to occur. Radioactive material is the only toxin that can strike from a distance. This is because chemical toxins need to be in the body to cause chemical changes that harm cells and biological processes, whereas radioactive material emits high energy particles that can travel over distances." Says Nuclear engineer James Hopf. "However... direct radiation will never be a significant factor with respect to total public health impact. Instead, the effects would come from dispersal of radioisotopes onto the land, air, and water, and the subsequent ingestion or inhalation of those isotopes. In all cases, the concentrations of radioisotopes would be far too small for the soil, water, or air in question to cause a significant direct radiation dose to a nearby person. However, if the radioactive isotopes are ingested or inhaled, and they then spend a significant residence time in the body, they will cause the adverse health effects that the public fears. But in this respect, radioactive material does not behave any differently from any other toxin. It basically has to be inhaled or ingested to have effect... Thus, although the mystique exists, it will never come into play in any real way, in any real situations."
—A Tutorial by Nuclear Engineer — James Hopf.
www.AmericanEnergyIndependence.com/radiation.html
Nuclear radiation from spent nuclear fuel is toxic and can be the source of a lethal dose of radiation or eventually cancer from a milder dose, but only if you are exposed directly to the radiation. The same is true of many chemicals and heavy metals like lead and mercury, which can also cause genetic mutations.
I was surprised to hear a young man who has a biology degree from a major university tell me that nuclear waste is the most toxic substance on earth. He was afraid of nuclear energy. He obviously had not inquired into the subject – he merely recited the anti-nuclear propaganda without questioning or bothering to talk to a nuclear scientist. The fact that thousands of other chemicals and metals are also extremely toxic does not make nuclear radiation less dangerous – but an exaggerated fear of nuclear radiation while showing little concern for the other equally toxic substances that exist within and around our communities is what makes the fear of nuclear energy irrational.
- Excerpt from The Price of Nuclear Illiteracy
www.AmericanEnergyIndependence.com/nuclearliteracy.html
"The direct radiation effect is the one thing that is different about nuclear material, as compared to other toxins, which may be the source of some of the fear and mystique. All other toxins require ingestion or inhalation for harm to occur. Radioactive material is the only toxin that can strike from a distance. This is because chemical toxins need to be in the body to cause chemical changes that harm cells and biological processes, whereas radioactive material emits high energy particles that can travel over distances." Says Nuclear engineer James Hopf. "However... direct radiation will never be a significant factor with respect to total public health impact. Instead, the effects would come from dispersal of radioisotopes onto the land, air, and water, and the subsequent ingestion or inhalation of those isotopes. In all cases, the concentrations of radioisotopes would be far too small for the soil, water, or air in question to cause a significant direct radiation dose to a nearby person. However, if the radioactive isotopes are ingested or inhaled, and they then spend a significant residence time in the body, they will cause the adverse health effects that the public fears. But in this respect, radioactive material does not behave any differently from any other toxin. It basically has to be inhaled or ingested to have effect... Thus, although the mystique exists, it will never come into play in any real way, in any real situations."
—A Tutorial by Nuclear Engineer — James Hopf.
www.AmericanEnergyIndependence.com/radiation.html
Nuclear radiation from spent nuclear fuel is toxic and can be the source of a lethal dose of radiation or eventually cancer from a milder dose, but only if you are exposed directly to the radiation. The same is true of many chemicals and heavy metals like lead and mercury, which can also cause genetic mutations.
I was surprised to hear a young man who has a biology degree from a major university tell me that nuclear waste is the most toxic substance on earth. He was afraid of nuclear energy. He obviously had not inquired into the subject – he merely recited the anti-nuclear propaganda without questioning or bothering to talk to a nuclear scientist. The fact that thousands of other chemicals and metals are also extremely toxic does not make nuclear radiation less dangerous – but an exaggerated fear of nuclear radiation while showing little concern for the other equally toxic substances that exist within and around our communities is what makes the fear of nuclear energy irrational.
- Excerpt from The Price of Nuclear Illiteracy
www.AmericanEnergyIndependence.com/nuclearliteracy.html
A DOSE OF NUCLEAR RADIATION
By James Lovelock
Excerpt from The Ages of Gaia (1988)
The Price of Nuclear Illiteracy
www.AmericanEnergyIndependence.com/nuclearliteracy.html
By James Lovelock
Excerpt from The Ages of Gaia (1988)
QUOTE
Carl Sagan once observed that if an alien astronomer were to look at the Solar System in the radio-frequency part of the spectrum, it would see a truly remarkable object. Two stars eclipsing one another: one of them a normal, small, main-sequence star and the other a very small, but intensely luminous body with an apparent surface temperature of millions of degrees, our Earth. Were that distant observer a scientist, it might speculate on the nature of the energy source that powered, what seemed to be, one of the hottest objects in the Galaxy. I wonder how high on the list of probable sources it would place chemical energy. Would it include energy coming from the reaction between fossil fuels and oxygen from plants?
It is easy to ignore the fact that we are the anomalous ones. The natural energy of the Universe, the power that lights the starts in the sky, is nuclear. Chemical energy, wind, and water wheels: such sources of energy are, from the viewpoint of a manager of the Universe, almost as rare as a coal-burning star. If this is so, and if God's Universe is nuclear-powered, why then are so many of us prepared to march in protest against its use to provide us with electricity?
Fear feeds on ignorance, and a great niche was opened for fear when science became incomprehensible to those who were not its practitioners. When X rays and nuclear phenomena were discovered at the end of the last century, they were seen as great benefits to medicine--the near-magic sight of the living skeleton and the first means to palliate, even sometimes cure, cancer. Röntgen, Becquerel, and the Curies are remembered with affection for the good their discoveries did. Sure enough, there was a dark side also, and too much radiation is a slow and nasty poison. But even water can kill if too much is taken.
It is usually assumed that the change in attitude towards radiation came from our revulsion at that first misuse of nuclear energy at Hiroshima and Nagasaki. But it is not that simple. I well remember how the first nuclear power stations were a source of national pride as they quietly delivered their benefice of energy without the vast pollution of the coal burners they replaced. There was a long spell of innocence between the end of the Second Worlds War and the start of the protest movements of the 1960s. So what went wrong?
Nothing really went wrong, it just happens that nuclear radiation, pesticides, and ozone depleters share in common the property that they are easily measured and monitored. The attachment of a number to anything or anyone bestows a significance that previously was missing. Sometimes, as with a telephone number, it is real and valuable. But some observations--for example, that the atmospheric abundance of perfluoromethyl cyclohexame is 5.6 x 10-15, or that as you read this line of text at least one hundred thousand of the atoms within you will have disintegrated--while scientifically interesting, neither confer benefit nor have significance for your health. They are of no concern to the public.
But once numbers are attached to an environmental property the means will soon be found to justify their recording, and before long a data bank of information about the distribution of substance X or radiation Y will exist. It is a small step to compare the contents of different data banks and, in the nature of statistical distributions, there will be a correlation between the distribution of substance X and the incidence of the disease Z. It is no exaggeration to observe that once some curious investigator pries open such a niche, it will be filled by the opportunistic growth of hungry professionals and their predators. A new subset of society will be occupied in the business of monitoring substance X and disease Z, to say nothing of those who make the instruments to do it. Then there will be the lawyers who make the legislation for the bureaucrats to administer, and so on. Consider the size and intricacy of the radiation-monitoring agencies, of the industry that builds monitoring and protective devices, and of the academic community that has radiation biology as its subject. If the strong public fear of radiation were dispelled, it would not be helpful to their continued employment. We see that there is a very biological, Gaian, feedback in our community relationship with the environment. It is not a conspiracy or a selfishly motivated activity. Nothing like that is neeed to maintain the ceaseless curiosity of explorers and investigators, and there are always opportunists waiting to feed on their discoveries.
If this alone were not enough, there are the media, ready to entertain us. They have in the nuclear industry a permanent soap opera that costs them nothing. Why, we can even experience the excitement of a real disaster, like Chernobyl, but in which, as in fiction, only a few heroes died. It is true that calculations have been made of the cancer deaths across Europe that might come from Chernobyl, but if we were consistent, we might wonder also about the cancer deaths from breathing the coal smoke smogs of London and look on a piece of coal with the same fear now reserved for uranium. How different is the fear of death from nuclear accidents from the commonplace and boring death toll of the roads, of cigarette smoking, or of mining--which when taken together are equivalent to thousands of Chernobyls a day.
It was Rachel Carson, with her timely and seminal book Silent Spring, who started the Green Movement and made us aware of the damage we can so easily do to the world around us. But I do not think that she could have made her case against pesticide poisoning without the prior discovery that agricultural pesticides were distributed ubiquitously throughout the whole biosphere. Numbers could even be attached to the wholly insignificant quantities of pesticide in the milk of nursing mothers or in the fat of penguins in the Antarctic. In Rachel Carson's time, pesticides were a real threat, and the blind exponential increase of their use put all our futures in hazard. But we have responded in a fashion, and that one experience ought not be extrapolated to all environmental hazards real or imagined.
The foregoing paragraphs are not intended as support for the nuclear industry, not to imply that I am enamored of nuclear power. My concern is that the hype about it, both for and against, diverts us from the real and serious problem of living in harmony with ourselves and the rest of the biota. I am far from being an uncritical supporter of nuclear power. I often have a nightmare vision of the invention a simple, light weight nuclear fusion power source. It would be a small box, about the size of a telephone directory, with four ordinary electricity outlets embedded in its surface. The box would breath in air and extract, from its content of moisture, hydrogen that would fuel a miniature nuclear fusion power source rated to supply a maximum of 100 kilowatts. It would be cheap, reliable, manufactured in Japan, and available everywhere. It would be the perfect, clean, safe power source; no nuclear waste nor radiation would escape from it, and it could never fail dangerously.
Life could be transformed. Free power for domestic use; no one need ever again be cold in winter or overheated in the summer. Simple, elegant pollution-free private transport would be available to everyone. We could colonize the planets and maybe even move on to explore the star systems of our Galaxy. That is how it might be sold, but the reality almost certainly is ominously expressed by Lord Acton's famous dictum "Power tends to corrupt and absolute power corrupts absolutely." He was thinking of political power, but it could be just as true of electricity. Already we are displacing the habitats of our partners in Gaia with agricultural monocultures powered by cheap fossil fuel. We do it faster than we can think about the consequences. Just imagine what could happen with unlimited free power.
If we cannot disinvent nuclear power, I hope that it stays as it is. The power sources are vast and slow to be built, and the low cost of the power itself is offset by the size of the capital investment required. Public fears, unreasoning though they sometimes are, act as an effective negative feedback on unbridled growth. No one, thank God, can invent a chain saw driven by a nuclear fission power source that could but a forest as fast and heedlessly as now we cut down a tree.
To my ecologist friends, many of whom have been at the sharp end of protest against nuclear power, these views must seem like a betrayal. In fact, I have never regarded nuclear radiation or nuclear power as anything other than a normal and inevitable part of the environment. Our prokaryotic forebears evolved on a planet-sized lump of fallout from a star-sized nuclear explosion, a supernova that synthesized the elements that go to make our planet and ourselves. That we are not the first species to experiment with nuclear reactors has been touched on earlier in this book.
I am indebted to Dr. Thomas of Oak Ridge Associated Universities, who gave me a new insight on the nature of the biological consequences of nuclear radiation. As I listened to his words, spoken in the quiet privacy of his room, I felt an emotion like that described by Keats in his verses about fist reading Chapman's Homer. What Dr. Thomas said may have been no more than hypothetical, but to me it was exciting stuff. Let's look at his proposition: "Suppose that the biological effects of exposure to nuclear radiation are no different from those of breathing oxygen." We have long known that the agents within the living cell that do damage after the passage of an X-ray photon, or a fast-moving atomic fragment, are an assortment of broken chemicals; things called free radicals that are reactive and destructive chemicals. As an X-ray photon passes through the cell, the radiation severs chemical bonds just as a bullet might sever blood vessels and nerves. By far the greater part of this destruction is of molecules of water, for they are the most abundant in living matter. The broken pieces of a water molecule form, in the presence of oxygen, a suite of destructive products including the hydrogen and hydroxyl radicals, the superoxide ion, and hydrogen peroxide. These are all capable of damaging, irreversibly, the genetic polymers that are the instructions of the cell. This is now conventional scientific wisdom; the novel insight from Dr. Thomas was to remind us that these same destructive chemicals are being made all the time, in the absence of radiation, by small inefficiencies in the normal process of oxidative metabolism. In other words, so far as our cells are concerned, damage by nuclear radiation and damage by breathing
oxygen are almost indistinguishable.
The special value of this hypothesis is that it suggests a rule of thumb for comparing these two damaging properties of the environment. If Dr. Thomas were right, then the damage done by breathing is equivalent to a whole body radiation dose of approximately 100 roentgens per year. I used to wonder about the risk-benefit ratio of a medical X-ray examination. A typical hospital X-ray of the chest or abdomen could deliver 0.1 roentgen of radiation, enough to blacken the film of a personal radiation monitor and to have caused terror to the inhabitants of Three Mile Island. Now, thanks to Dr. Thomas, I look upon it as no more than one-thousandth of the effect of breathing for a year. Or to put it another way, breathing is fifty times more dangerous than the sum total of radiation we normally receive from all sources.
The early battles at the end of the Achaean against the planet-wide pollution by oxygen are still apparently with us. Living systems have invented ingenious countermeasures: antioxidants such as vitamin E to remove the hydroxyl radiacals, superoxide dismutase to destroy the superoxide ion, catalase to inactivate hydrogen peroxide, and numerous other means to lessen the destructive effects of breathing. Nevertheless, it seems likely that the life span of most animals is set by a fixed upper limit of the quantity of oxygen that their cells can use before suffering irreversible damage. Small animals such as mice have a specific rate of metabolism much greater than we do; that is why they live only a year or so even if protected from predation and disease. Oxygen kills just as nuclear radiation does, by destroying the instructions within our cells about reproduction and repair. Oxygen is thus a mutagen and a carcinogen, and breathing it sets the limit of our life span. But oxygen also opened to life a vast range of opportunities that were denied to the lowly anoxic world. To mention just one of these: free molecular oxygen is needed for the biosynthesis of those special structure-building amino-acids, hydroxylysine and hydroxyproline. From these are made the structural components that made possible the trees and animals.
Paul Crutzen, an atmospheric chemist, was the first to draw our attention to the far-reaching geophysiological consequences of a major nuclear war, the "nuclear winter". We need to be reminded, often, just how bad that ultimate sanction can be so that it remains a deterrent. But, like oxygen, nuclear energy provides opportunities and challenges us to learn to live with it.
It is easy to ignore the fact that we are the anomalous ones. The natural energy of the Universe, the power that lights the starts in the sky, is nuclear. Chemical energy, wind, and water wheels: such sources of energy are, from the viewpoint of a manager of the Universe, almost as rare as a coal-burning star. If this is so, and if God's Universe is nuclear-powered, why then are so many of us prepared to march in protest against its use to provide us with electricity?
Fear feeds on ignorance, and a great niche was opened for fear when science became incomprehensible to those who were not its practitioners. When X rays and nuclear phenomena were discovered at the end of the last century, they were seen as great benefits to medicine--the near-magic sight of the living skeleton and the first means to palliate, even sometimes cure, cancer. Röntgen, Becquerel, and the Curies are remembered with affection for the good their discoveries did. Sure enough, there was a dark side also, and too much radiation is a slow and nasty poison. But even water can kill if too much is taken.
It is usually assumed that the change in attitude towards radiation came from our revulsion at that first misuse of nuclear energy at Hiroshima and Nagasaki. But it is not that simple. I well remember how the first nuclear power stations were a source of national pride as they quietly delivered their benefice of energy without the vast pollution of the coal burners they replaced. There was a long spell of innocence between the end of the Second Worlds War and the start of the protest movements of the 1960s. So what went wrong?
Nothing really went wrong, it just happens that nuclear radiation, pesticides, and ozone depleters share in common the property that they are easily measured and monitored. The attachment of a number to anything or anyone bestows a significance that previously was missing. Sometimes, as with a telephone number, it is real and valuable. But some observations--for example, that the atmospheric abundance of perfluoromethyl cyclohexame is 5.6 x 10-15, or that as you read this line of text at least one hundred thousand of the atoms within you will have disintegrated--while scientifically interesting, neither confer benefit nor have significance for your health. They are of no concern to the public.
But once numbers are attached to an environmental property the means will soon be found to justify their recording, and before long a data bank of information about the distribution of substance X or radiation Y will exist. It is a small step to compare the contents of different data banks and, in the nature of statistical distributions, there will be a correlation between the distribution of substance X and the incidence of the disease Z. It is no exaggeration to observe that once some curious investigator pries open such a niche, it will be filled by the opportunistic growth of hungry professionals and their predators. A new subset of society will be occupied in the business of monitoring substance X and disease Z, to say nothing of those who make the instruments to do it. Then there will be the lawyers who make the legislation for the bureaucrats to administer, and so on. Consider the size and intricacy of the radiation-monitoring agencies, of the industry that builds monitoring and protective devices, and of the academic community that has radiation biology as its subject. If the strong public fear of radiation were dispelled, it would not be helpful to their continued employment. We see that there is a very biological, Gaian, feedback in our community relationship with the environment. It is not a conspiracy or a selfishly motivated activity. Nothing like that is neeed to maintain the ceaseless curiosity of explorers and investigators, and there are always opportunists waiting to feed on their discoveries.
If this alone were not enough, there are the media, ready to entertain us. They have in the nuclear industry a permanent soap opera that costs them nothing. Why, we can even experience the excitement of a real disaster, like Chernobyl, but in which, as in fiction, only a few heroes died. It is true that calculations have been made of the cancer deaths across Europe that might come from Chernobyl, but if we were consistent, we might wonder also about the cancer deaths from breathing the coal smoke smogs of London and look on a piece of coal with the same fear now reserved for uranium. How different is the fear of death from nuclear accidents from the commonplace and boring death toll of the roads, of cigarette smoking, or of mining--which when taken together are equivalent to thousands of Chernobyls a day.
It was Rachel Carson, with her timely and seminal book Silent Spring, who started the Green Movement and made us aware of the damage we can so easily do to the world around us. But I do not think that she could have made her case against pesticide poisoning without the prior discovery that agricultural pesticides were distributed ubiquitously throughout the whole biosphere. Numbers could even be attached to the wholly insignificant quantities of pesticide in the milk of nursing mothers or in the fat of penguins in the Antarctic. In Rachel Carson's time, pesticides were a real threat, and the blind exponential increase of their use put all our futures in hazard. But we have responded in a fashion, and that one experience ought not be extrapolated to all environmental hazards real or imagined.
The foregoing paragraphs are not intended as support for the nuclear industry, not to imply that I am enamored of nuclear power. My concern is that the hype about it, both for and against, diverts us from the real and serious problem of living in harmony with ourselves and the rest of the biota. I am far from being an uncritical supporter of nuclear power. I often have a nightmare vision of the invention a simple, light weight nuclear fusion power source. It would be a small box, about the size of a telephone directory, with four ordinary electricity outlets embedded in its surface. The box would breath in air and extract, from its content of moisture, hydrogen that would fuel a miniature nuclear fusion power source rated to supply a maximum of 100 kilowatts. It would be cheap, reliable, manufactured in Japan, and available everywhere. It would be the perfect, clean, safe power source; no nuclear waste nor radiation would escape from it, and it could never fail dangerously.
Life could be transformed. Free power for domestic use; no one need ever again be cold in winter or overheated in the summer. Simple, elegant pollution-free private transport would be available to everyone. We could colonize the planets and maybe even move on to explore the star systems of our Galaxy. That is how it might be sold, but the reality almost certainly is ominously expressed by Lord Acton's famous dictum "Power tends to corrupt and absolute power corrupts absolutely." He was thinking of political power, but it could be just as true of electricity. Already we are displacing the habitats of our partners in Gaia with agricultural monocultures powered by cheap fossil fuel. We do it faster than we can think about the consequences. Just imagine what could happen with unlimited free power.
If we cannot disinvent nuclear power, I hope that it stays as it is. The power sources are vast and slow to be built, and the low cost of the power itself is offset by the size of the capital investment required. Public fears, unreasoning though they sometimes are, act as an effective negative feedback on unbridled growth. No one, thank God, can invent a chain saw driven by a nuclear fission power source that could but a forest as fast and heedlessly as now we cut down a tree.
To my ecologist friends, many of whom have been at the sharp end of protest against nuclear power, these views must seem like a betrayal. In fact, I have never regarded nuclear radiation or nuclear power as anything other than a normal and inevitable part of the environment. Our prokaryotic forebears evolved on a planet-sized lump of fallout from a star-sized nuclear explosion, a supernova that synthesized the elements that go to make our planet and ourselves. That we are not the first species to experiment with nuclear reactors has been touched on earlier in this book.
I am indebted to Dr. Thomas of Oak Ridge Associated Universities, who gave me a new insight on the nature of the biological consequences of nuclear radiation. As I listened to his words, spoken in the quiet privacy of his room, I felt an emotion like that described by Keats in his verses about fist reading Chapman's Homer. What Dr. Thomas said may have been no more than hypothetical, but to me it was exciting stuff. Let's look at his proposition: "Suppose that the biological effects of exposure to nuclear radiation are no different from those of breathing oxygen." We have long known that the agents within the living cell that do damage after the passage of an X-ray photon, or a fast-moving atomic fragment, are an assortment of broken chemicals; things called free radicals that are reactive and destructive chemicals. As an X-ray photon passes through the cell, the radiation severs chemical bonds just as a bullet might sever blood vessels and nerves. By far the greater part of this destruction is of molecules of water, for they are the most abundant in living matter. The broken pieces of a water molecule form, in the presence of oxygen, a suite of destructive products including the hydrogen and hydroxyl radicals, the superoxide ion, and hydrogen peroxide. These are all capable of damaging, irreversibly, the genetic polymers that are the instructions of the cell. This is now conventional scientific wisdom; the novel insight from Dr. Thomas was to remind us that these same destructive chemicals are being made all the time, in the absence of radiation, by small inefficiencies in the normal process of oxidative metabolism. In other words, so far as our cells are concerned, damage by nuclear radiation and damage by breathing
oxygen are almost indistinguishable.
The special value of this hypothesis is that it suggests a rule of thumb for comparing these two damaging properties of the environment. If Dr. Thomas were right, then the damage done by breathing is equivalent to a whole body radiation dose of approximately 100 roentgens per year. I used to wonder about the risk-benefit ratio of a medical X-ray examination. A typical hospital X-ray of the chest or abdomen could deliver 0.1 roentgen of radiation, enough to blacken the film of a personal radiation monitor and to have caused terror to the inhabitants of Three Mile Island. Now, thanks to Dr. Thomas, I look upon it as no more than one-thousandth of the effect of breathing for a year. Or to put it another way, breathing is fifty times more dangerous than the sum total of radiation we normally receive from all sources.
The early battles at the end of the Achaean against the planet-wide pollution by oxygen are still apparently with us. Living systems have invented ingenious countermeasures: antioxidants such as vitamin E to remove the hydroxyl radiacals, superoxide dismutase to destroy the superoxide ion, catalase to inactivate hydrogen peroxide, and numerous other means to lessen the destructive effects of breathing. Nevertheless, it seems likely that the life span of most animals is set by a fixed upper limit of the quantity of oxygen that their cells can use before suffering irreversible damage. Small animals such as mice have a specific rate of metabolism much greater than we do; that is why they live only a year or so even if protected from predation and disease. Oxygen kills just as nuclear radiation does, by destroying the instructions within our cells about reproduction and repair. Oxygen is thus a mutagen and a carcinogen, and breathing it sets the limit of our life span. But oxygen also opened to life a vast range of opportunities that were denied to the lowly anoxic world. To mention just one of these: free molecular oxygen is needed for the biosynthesis of those special structure-building amino-acids, hydroxylysine and hydroxyproline. From these are made the structural components that made possible the trees and animals.
Paul Crutzen, an atmospheric chemist, was the first to draw our attention to the far-reaching geophysiological consequences of a major nuclear war, the "nuclear winter". We need to be reminded, often, just how bad that ultimate sanction can be so that it remains a deterrent. But, like oxygen, nuclear energy provides opportunities and challenges us to learn to live with it.
The Price of Nuclear Illiteracy
www.AmericanEnergyIndependence.com/nuclearliteracy.html
How big of a problem is nuclear waste?
... The first time I read something about the volume of nuclear waste produced by a nuclear power plant, I could not believe what I was reading. The author wrote: "One thing I was always concerned about was Nuclear waste, until I learned that if I lived to the age of 80 and all the energy I ever used in my lifetime came from Nuclear energy, that I would have created a golf-ball sized piece of waste. When taken with the consideration of the pollutants that fossil fuels create, this seemed insignificant to me..."
I asked a nuclear engineer, who specializes in mathematical calculations involving uranium fuel and spent nuclear fuel storage, to tell me if the golf-ball size piece of waste was true. He performed the calculations and concluded that it would be closer to the size of a soft-ball. Eighty years worth of energy! I don’t care if it is the size of a basketball. A life-time of energy and all I have to worry about is containment of a very small amount of highly toxic material. I don’t think that is too much of a challenge for modern engineering.
Containment – is the keyword required for a rational understanding of the dangers of nuclear radiation from spent nuclear fuel. The volume (the size) of the substance to be contained plays a very important role in how successful the containment is likely to be. The smaller the volume, the easier it will be to contain. It doesn’t matter how toxic a substance is; as long as the substance is contained so that it cannot escape into the environment, or come into contact with people.
The Price of Nuclear Illiteracy
www.AmericanEnergyIndependence.com/nuclearliteracy.html
Read the following insights from Richard Rhodes and Dr. Denis Beller:
“The great advantage of nuclear power is its ability to wrest enormous energy from a small volume of fuel. Nuclear fission, transforming matter directly to energy is several million times as energetic as chemical burning, which merely breaks chemical bonds. One ton of nuclear fuel produces energy equivalent to 2 to 3 million tons of fossil fuel… Running a 1000 mega-watt (a continuous one million kilowatt) power plant for a year requires 2000 train cars of coal or 10 supertankers of oil but only 12 cubic meters of natural uranium… The spent nuclear fuel and other radioactive waste requiring disposal after one year would be about 20 cubic meters in all when compacted (roughly, the volume of two automobiles)… The high-level waste is intensely radioactive, of course… But thanks to its small volume and the fact that it is not released into the environment, this high-level waste can be meticulously sequestered behind multiple barriers. Waste from coal, dispersed across the landscape in smoke or buried near the surface, remains toxic forever. Radioactive nuclear waste decays steadily, losing 99% of its toxicity after 600 years – well within the range of human experience… Nuclear waste disposal is a political problem in the United States because of widespread fear disproportionate to the reality of risk. But it is not an engineering problem.”
- Excerpt from The Need For Nuclear Power
by Richard Rhodes and Dr. Denis Beller
... The first time I read something about the volume of nuclear waste produced by a nuclear power plant, I could not believe what I was reading. The author wrote: "One thing I was always concerned about was Nuclear waste, until I learned that if I lived to the age of 80 and all the energy I ever used in my lifetime came from Nuclear energy, that I would have created a golf-ball sized piece of waste. When taken with the consideration of the pollutants that fossil fuels create, this seemed insignificant to me..."
I asked a nuclear engineer, who specializes in mathematical calculations involving uranium fuel and spent nuclear fuel storage, to tell me if the golf-ball size piece of waste was true. He performed the calculations and concluded that it would be closer to the size of a soft-ball. Eighty years worth of energy! I don’t care if it is the size of a basketball. A life-time of energy and all I have to worry about is containment of a very small amount of highly toxic material. I don’t think that is too much of a challenge for modern engineering.
Containment – is the keyword required for a rational understanding of the dangers of nuclear radiation from spent nuclear fuel. The volume (the size) of the substance to be contained plays a very important role in how successful the containment is likely to be. The smaller the volume, the easier it will be to contain. It doesn’t matter how toxic a substance is; as long as the substance is contained so that it cannot escape into the environment, or come into contact with people.
The Price of Nuclear Illiteracy
www.AmericanEnergyIndependence.com/nuclearliteracy.html
Read the following insights from Richard Rhodes and Dr. Denis Beller:
“The great advantage of nuclear power is its ability to wrest enormous energy from a small volume of fuel. Nuclear fission, transforming matter directly to energy is several million times as energetic as chemical burning, which merely breaks chemical bonds. One ton of nuclear fuel produces energy equivalent to 2 to 3 million tons of fossil fuel… Running a 1000 mega-watt (a continuous one million kilowatt) power plant for a year requires 2000 train cars of coal or 10 supertankers of oil but only 12 cubic meters of natural uranium… The spent nuclear fuel and other radioactive waste requiring disposal after one year would be about 20 cubic meters in all when compacted (roughly, the volume of two automobiles)… The high-level waste is intensely radioactive, of course… But thanks to its small volume and the fact that it is not released into the environment, this high-level waste can be meticulously sequestered behind multiple barriers. Waste from coal, dispersed across the landscape in smoke or buried near the surface, remains toxic forever. Radioactive nuclear waste decays steadily, losing 99% of its toxicity after 600 years – well within the range of human experience… Nuclear waste disposal is a political problem in the United States because of widespread fear disproportionate to the reality of risk. But it is not an engineering problem.”
- Excerpt from The Need For Nuclear Power
by Richard Rhodes and Dr. Denis Beller
NATURAL NUCLEAR REACTORS (OKLO)
Excerpt from James Lovelock, The Ages of Gaia (1988)
Excerpt from James Lovelock, The Ages of Gaia (1988)
QUOTE
"A bizarre consequence of the appearance of oxygen was the advent the world's first nuclear reactors. Nuclear power from its inception has rarely been described publicly except in hyperbole. The impression has been given that to design and construct a nuclear reactor is a feat unique to physical science and engineering creativity. It is chastening to find that, in the Proterozoic, an unassertive community of modest bacteria built a set of nuclear reactors that ran for millions of years.
"This extraordinary event occurred 1.8 eons (1.8 billion years) ago at a place now called Oklo in Gabon, Africa, and was discovered quite by accident. At Oklo, there is a mine that supplies uranium mainly for the French nuclear industry. During the 1970s, a shipment of uranium from Oklo was founded to be depleted in the fissionable isotope Uranium-235. Natural uranium is always of the same isotopic composition--99.27 percent Uranium-238, 0.72 percent of Uranium-235 and traces of Uranium-234. Only the Uranium-235 isotope can take part in the chain reactions necessary for power production or for explosions. Naturally, the fissionable isotope is guarded carefully and its proportion in uranium subjected to thorough and repeated scrutiny.
"Imagine the shock that must have passed through the French atomic energy agency when it was discovered that the shipment of uranium had a much smaller proportion of Uranium-235 than normal. Had some clandestine group in Africa or France found a way to extract the potent fissionable isotope, and were they now storing this for use in terrorist nuclear weapons? Had someone stolen the uranium ore from the mine and substituted spent uranium from a nuclear industry elsewhere? Whatever had happened, a sinister explanation seemed likely. The truth, when it came, was not only a fascinating piece of science but must also have been an immense relief to minds troubled with images of tons of undiluted Uranium-235 in the hands of fanatics.
"The chemistry of the element uranium is such that it is insoluable in water under oxygen-free conditions, but readily soluable in water in the presence of oxygen. When enough oxygen appeared in the Proterozoic to render the ground water oxidizing, uranium in the rocks began to dissolve and, as the uranyl ion, became one of the many elements present in trace quantities in flowing streams. The strength of the uranium solution would have been at most no more than a few parts per million, and uranium would have been but one of many ions in solution. In the place that is now Oklo such a stream flowed into an algal mat that included microorganisms with a strange capacity to collect and concentrate uranium specifically. They performed their unconscious task so well that eventually enough uranium oxide was deposited in the pure state for a nuclear reaction to start.
"When more than a 'critical mass' of uranium containing the fissionable isotope is gathered together in one place there is a self-sustaining chain reaction. The fission of uranium atoms sets free neutrons that cause the fission of more uranium atoms and more neutrons and so on. Provided that the number of neutrons produced balances those that escape, or are absorbed by other atoms, the reactor continues. This kind of reactor is not explosive; indeed it is self-regulating. The presence of water, through its ability to slow and reflect neutrons, is an essential feature of the reactor. When power output increases, water boils away and the nuclear reaction slows down. A nuclear fission reaction is a perverse kind of fire; it burns better when well watered. The Oklo reactors ran gently at the kilowatt power level for millions of years and used up a fair amount of the natural Uranium-235 doing so.
"The presence of the Oklo reactors confirms an oxidizing environment. In the absence of oxygen, uranium is not soluble. It is just as well that it is not; when life started 3.6 eons (3.6 billion years) back, uranium was much more enriched in the fissile isotope U-235. This isotope decays more rapidly than the common isotope U-238, and at life's beginning the proportion of fissile uranium was not 0.7 percent as now but 33 percent. Uranium so enriched could have been the source of spectacular nuclear fireworks had any bacteria been unwise enough to concentrate it. This also suggests that the atmosphere was not oxidizing in the early Archean.
"Bacteria could not have debated the costs and benefits of nuclear power. The fact that the reactors ran so long and that there was more than one of them suggests that replenishment must have occurred and that the radiation and nuclear waste from the reactor was not a deterrent to that ancient bacterial ecosystem. (The distribution of stable fission products around the reactor site is also valuable evidence to suggest that the problems of nuclear waste disposal now are nowhere near so difficult and dangerous as the feverish pronouncements of the antinuclear movement would suggest.) The Oklo reactors are a splendid example of geophysical homeostasis. They illustrate how specific materials can be segregated and concentrated in the pure state--an act of profound negentropy in itself, but also an invaluable subsystem of numerous geophysical processes. The separation of silica by the diatoms and of calcium carbonate by coccolithophoridons and other living organisms, both in nearly pure form, are such processes and have had a profound effect on the evolution of the Earth.
- James Lovelock, The Ages of Gaia (1988)
"This extraordinary event occurred 1.8 eons (1.8 billion years) ago at a place now called Oklo in Gabon, Africa, and was discovered quite by accident. At Oklo, there is a mine that supplies uranium mainly for the French nuclear industry. During the 1970s, a shipment of uranium from Oklo was founded to be depleted in the fissionable isotope Uranium-235. Natural uranium is always of the same isotopic composition--99.27 percent Uranium-238, 0.72 percent of Uranium-235 and traces of Uranium-234. Only the Uranium-235 isotope can take part in the chain reactions necessary for power production or for explosions. Naturally, the fissionable isotope is guarded carefully and its proportion in uranium subjected to thorough and repeated scrutiny.
"Imagine the shock that must have passed through the French atomic energy agency when it was discovered that the shipment of uranium had a much smaller proportion of Uranium-235 than normal. Had some clandestine group in Africa or France found a way to extract the potent fissionable isotope, and were they now storing this for use in terrorist nuclear weapons? Had someone stolen the uranium ore from the mine and substituted spent uranium from a nuclear industry elsewhere? Whatever had happened, a sinister explanation seemed likely. The truth, when it came, was not only a fascinating piece of science but must also have been an immense relief to minds troubled with images of tons of undiluted Uranium-235 in the hands of fanatics.
"The chemistry of the element uranium is such that it is insoluable in water under oxygen-free conditions, but readily soluable in water in the presence of oxygen. When enough oxygen appeared in the Proterozoic to render the ground water oxidizing, uranium in the rocks began to dissolve and, as the uranyl ion, became one of the many elements present in trace quantities in flowing streams. The strength of the uranium solution would have been at most no more than a few parts per million, and uranium would have been but one of many ions in solution. In the place that is now Oklo such a stream flowed into an algal mat that included microorganisms with a strange capacity to collect and concentrate uranium specifically. They performed their unconscious task so well that eventually enough uranium oxide was deposited in the pure state for a nuclear reaction to start.
"When more than a 'critical mass' of uranium containing the fissionable isotope is gathered together in one place there is a self-sustaining chain reaction. The fission of uranium atoms sets free neutrons that cause the fission of more uranium atoms and more neutrons and so on. Provided that the number of neutrons produced balances those that escape, or are absorbed by other atoms, the reactor continues. This kind of reactor is not explosive; indeed it is self-regulating. The presence of water, through its ability to slow and reflect neutrons, is an essential feature of the reactor. When power output increases, water boils away and the nuclear reaction slows down. A nuclear fission reaction is a perverse kind of fire; it burns better when well watered. The Oklo reactors ran gently at the kilowatt power level for millions of years and used up a fair amount of the natural Uranium-235 doing so.
"The presence of the Oklo reactors confirms an oxidizing environment. In the absence of oxygen, uranium is not soluble. It is just as well that it is not; when life started 3.6 eons (3.6 billion years) back, uranium was much more enriched in the fissile isotope U-235. This isotope decays more rapidly than the common isotope U-238, and at life's beginning the proportion of fissile uranium was not 0.7 percent as now but 33 percent. Uranium so enriched could have been the source of spectacular nuclear fireworks had any bacteria been unwise enough to concentrate it. This also suggests that the atmosphere was not oxidizing in the early Archean.
"Bacteria could not have debated the costs and benefits of nuclear power. The fact that the reactors ran so long and that there was more than one of them suggests that replenishment must have occurred and that the radiation and nuclear waste from the reactor was not a deterrent to that ancient bacterial ecosystem. (The distribution of stable fission products around the reactor site is also valuable evidence to suggest that the problems of nuclear waste disposal now are nowhere near so difficult and dangerous as the feverish pronouncements of the antinuclear movement would suggest.) The Oklo reactors are a splendid example of geophysical homeostasis. They illustrate how specific materials can be segregated and concentrated in the pure state--an act of profound negentropy in itself, but also an invaluable subsystem of numerous geophysical processes. The separation of silica by the diatoms and of calcium carbonate by coccolithophoridons and other living organisms, both in nearly pure form, are such processes and have had a profound effect on the evolution of the Earth.
- James Lovelock, The Ages of Gaia (1988)
The American people should continue to demand transparency, accountability and whistle blower protection concerning nuclear power plant construction, operation and administration. The American people should hold their elected representatives in congress accountable for management compromises at nuclear power plants and the oversight failures of the NRC (Nuclear Regulatory Commission).
However, even with the potential danger, nuclear energy technology has a long history of safe operation. Worldwide nuclear electricity has accumulated over 10,000 reactor-years of operating experience. Today, the issue of nuclear energy safety and nuclear waste disposal is not a technical problem but one of public and political acceptance.
The majority of Americans believe nuclear energy is safe.
Two national surveys taken in April 2004 find 65% of Americans favor the use of nuclear energy for electricity, and 73% of college graduate voters support nuclear energy.
Two new national surveys find favorable public attitudes toward nuclear energy at a record high. One survey of the U.S. public at large found that 65 percent favor the use of nuclear energy. The other survey of only college graduates who are registered to vote found that nearly three-quarters favor the use of nuclear energy as one of America’s options to generate electricity. The surveys were conducted April 16-20, 2004, for the Nuclear Energy Institute by Bisconti Research, Inc.
Energy Concerns Drive Record Public Favorability for Nuclear Energy
By Ann Stouffer Bisconti, Ph.D.
President, Bisconti Research Inc.
Opposition to nuclear energy comes from a small but vocal minority of the American public. Opponents of nuclear energy threaten lawsuits and political action against electric power companies. For this reason, electric power companies in the United States have not ordered a new nuclear power plant in 25 years.
If the American people fail to communicate their support for nuclear energy to their legislators, the opponents of nuclear energy will continue to stop new power plants from being built. If the opponents of nuclear energy continue to block the construction of nuclear power plants, there will be no future for nuclear engineers in America. Universities will stop offering nuclear engineering courses and the United States will fall behind the technology. America is at risk of losing its nuclear engineering expertise.
Safe Nuclear Energy:
www.AmericanEnergyIndependence.com/safenuclear.html
The anti-nuclear protesters are irrational, says a psychiatrist and expert on fears and phobias who has studied and analyzed social perceptions of nuclear energy:
A PBS interview with Dr. Robert DuPont
However, even with the potential danger, nuclear energy technology has a long history of safe operation. Worldwide nuclear electricity has accumulated over 10,000 reactor-years of operating experience. Today, the issue of nuclear energy safety and nuclear waste disposal is not a technical problem but one of public and political acceptance.
The majority of Americans believe nuclear energy is safe.
Two national surveys taken in April 2004 find 65% of Americans favor the use of nuclear energy for electricity, and 73% of college graduate voters support nuclear energy.
Two new national surveys find favorable public attitudes toward nuclear energy at a record high. One survey of the U.S. public at large found that 65 percent favor the use of nuclear energy. The other survey of only college graduates who are registered to vote found that nearly three-quarters favor the use of nuclear energy as one of America’s options to generate electricity. The surveys were conducted April 16-20, 2004, for the Nuclear Energy Institute by Bisconti Research, Inc.
Energy Concerns Drive Record Public Favorability for Nuclear Energy
By Ann Stouffer Bisconti, Ph.D.
President, Bisconti Research Inc.
Opposition to nuclear energy comes from a small but vocal minority of the American public. Opponents of nuclear energy threaten lawsuits and political action against electric power companies. For this reason, electric power companies in the United States have not ordered a new nuclear power plant in 25 years.
If the American people fail to communicate their support for nuclear energy to their legislators, the opponents of nuclear energy will continue to stop new power plants from being built. If the opponents of nuclear energy continue to block the construction of nuclear power plants, there will be no future for nuclear engineers in America. Universities will stop offering nuclear engineering courses and the United States will fall behind the technology. America is at risk of losing its nuclear engineering expertise.
Safe Nuclear Energy:
www.AmericanEnergyIndependence.com/safenuclear.html
The anti-nuclear protesters are irrational, says a psychiatrist and expert on fears and phobias who has studied and analyzed social perceptions of nuclear energy:
A PBS interview with Dr. Robert DuPont
I'm a little concerned that Gorbachev would be against closing down some of the nuclear plants in Russia. While I agree that we need more western-designed nuclear reactors, any nuclear engineer will tell you that Russia's RMBKs are very dangerous, and should probably be shut down. RMBKs, such as the reactor at Chernobyl, lack a containment and all sorts of other natural safety features that Western Reactors don't have. The result is that while the risk of an above-ground breach of containment is small at a western reactor, it's pretty big at an RMBK.
The fact that those RMBKs are still around gives the anti-Nukes something to complain about.
On Anti-Nukes being irrational: I think that "irrational" is a pretty harsh word for describing people who are against nuclear energy. Rather, I'd use "human". I think it's natural to be afraid of something that you don't understand and can't control that even has the slightest chance of hurting you and your family. Now, I'd say that people should really be more afraid of an airplane landing on their house than a nuclear meltdown, but nuclear energy seems to have a higher profile than the airline industry.
On AEI: For the record, AEI doesn't have a lot more credibility for a lot of people here than nucnews or UCS. I'm not saying they aren't trustworthy, but I am saying they've got a bit of an agenda.
The fact that those RMBKs are still around gives the anti-Nukes something to complain about.
On Anti-Nukes being irrational: I think that "irrational" is a pretty harsh word for describing people who are against nuclear energy. Rather, I'd use "human". I think it's natural to be afraid of something that you don't understand and can't control that even has the slightest chance of hurting you and your family. Now, I'd say that people should really be more afraid of an airplane landing on their house than a nuclear meltdown, but nuclear energy seems to have a higher profile than the airline industry.
On AEI: For the record, AEI doesn't have a lot more credibility for a lot of people here than nucnews or UCS. I'm not saying they aren't trustworthy, but I am saying they've got a bit of an agenda.
And just who owns the big Nuk power plants. Big business/ Bush Buddies, own the power plants. I wish all those who promote nuclear power had one in their back yard and stored the waste in their homes.
I have generated my own electricity for an over 3,000 sq ft home with solar with a generator backup. As for wind, I have been among the wind farms, and lived by one. I would much rather be among them than anywhere near a nuclear power plant. So do not try to force your dangerous nuclear power on me. I know better.
I have generated my own electricity for an over 3,000 sq ft home with solar with a generator backup. As for wind, I have been among the wind farms, and lived by one. I would much rather be among them than anywhere near a nuclear power plant. So do not try to force your dangerous nuclear power on me. I know better.
QUOTE(GoIllini @ Jan 17 2005, 09:59 AM)
I'm a little concerned that Gorbachev would be against closing down some of the nuclear plants in Russia.
- GoIllini,
I believe Gorbachev was directing his statement to the "green" movement. He only mentioned Chernobyl to say that he witnessed the accident, and knows how bad it was. He was urging the greens to stop opposing the development of Nuclear energy.
QUOTE
On Anti-Nukes being irrational: I think that "irrational" is a pretty harsh word for describing people who are against nuclear energy. Rather, I'd use "human". I think it's natural to be afraid of something that you don't understand and can't control that even has the slightest chance of hurting you and your family. Now, I'd say that people should really be more afraid of an airplane landing on their house than a nuclear meltdown, but nuclear energy seems to have a higher profile than the airline industry.
Well said. I agree, it is important to be considerate of people's feelings. And, we all witnessed, on 9/11, how dangerous an airplane can be, but we don't hear a huge demand to close down the airline industry, do we?
This thread begins with a quote from Dr. James Lovelock, Author of the GAIA theory
… The fear of nuclear energy is understandable through its association in the mind with the horrors of nuclear warfare, but it is unjustified; nuclear power plants are not bombs. What at first was a proper concern for safety has become a near pathological anxiety...
The word "irrational" is less harsh than calling it a "near pathological anxiety", but Dr. Lovelock wants people to know that the long term consequences of continued dependence on fossil fuels poses a far greater threat to our families than a hypothetical reactor melt-down.
The psychiatrist, Dr. Robert DuPont, explains the nature of the nuclear fears and phobias very gently.
A PBS interview with Dr. Robert DuPont
QUOTE
On AEI: For the record, AEI doesn't have a lot more credibility for a lot of people here than nucnews or UCS. I'm not saying they aren't trustworthy, but I am saying they've got a bit of an agenda.
AEI? Do you mean the American Energy Independence web site? Who are you speaking for when you say "a lot of people here"?
The "Agenda" on the American Energy Independence web site is right out there for everyone to see - nothing hidden, no request for money, Just a powerful argument associating oil dependence with terrorism and war in the Middle East. Not exactly a novel idea in these times, eh?
www.AmericanEnergyIndependence.com/nationalsecurity.html
QUOTE(Just Thinking @ Jan 17 2005, 06:57 PM)
And just who owns the big Nuk power plants. Big business/ Bush Buddies, own the power plants. I wish all those who promote nuclear power had one in their back yard and stored the waste in their homes.
I have generated my own electricity for an over 3,000 sq ft home with solar with a generator backup. As for wind, I have been among the wind farms, and lived by one. I would much rather be among them than anywhere near a nuclear power plant. So do not try to force your dangerous nuclear power on me. I know better.
I have generated my own electricity for an over 3,000 sq ft home with solar with a generator backup. As for wind, I have been among the wind farms, and lived by one. I would much rather be among them than anywhere near a nuclear power plant. So do not try to force your dangerous nuclear power on me. I know better.
Just Thinking,
Per kilowatt-hour generated, nuclear energy is actually SAFER than wind energy. More people fall out of those 100 foot wind turbines or drive off the road staring at them than people who die from boiler explosions and radiation induced cancer at nuclear plants. In fact, nuclear energy is much safer than hydroelectric dams- by something like a factor of 100, kilowatt-for-kilowatt, and when the numbers come in for wind, I think you'll be pretty suprised.
I was wondering if you could do me a favor, and just talk with a relatively unbiased person who would have a good idea of how a nuclear plant works, and ask him or her what he/she thinks about the safety of nuclear energy. I'm willing to bet that if you just take an hour to understand the physics of how a nuclear plant works, and all of the safety features involved in a western reactor, you won't be quite as opposed to it. For example, the fact that there's 5 feet of reinforced concrete-along with another containment or two- between the reactor and the outside world means that a nuclear plant can EASILY survive a hit from a Boeing 747, and can survive just about any explosion conceivable inside the nuclear plant. (In fact, the DOE did several tests back in the '70s; there should be a few videos of this floating around on the internet.) The result is that it's nearly impossible for an above-ground release of radioactive materials, and if there's a release below-ground, the materials still aren't going to hurt anything on the surface.
As for the NIMBY; I think you'd actually be suprised as to how many electric utility CEOs and pro-nuclear republicans live within 5-10 miles of a nuclear reactor.
As for the NIMBY; I think you'd actually be suprised as to how many electric utility CEOs and pro-nuclear republicans live within 5-10 miles of a nuclear reactor.
[/quote]
Do you?? Do you store the waste in your back yard? I doubt it. Do they want to store the waste in their back yards? I never heard any of them requesting to live with it in their yards.
If it is such marvelous stuff, why are they trying to store it in my back yard in an earthquake zone??
[/quote]
Do you?? Do you store the waste in your back yard? I doubt it. Do they want to store the waste in their back yards? I never heard any of them requesting to live with it in their yards.
If it is such marvelous stuff, why are they trying to store it in my back yard in an earthquake zone??
QUOTE(Just Thinking @ Jan 17 2005, 07:57 PM)
And just who owns the big Nuk power plants. Big business/ Bush Buddies, own the power plants. I wish all those who promote nuclear power had one in their back yard and stored the waste in their homes.
I have generated my own electricity for an over 3,000 sq ft home with solar with a generator backup. As for wind, I have been among the wind farms, and lived by one. I would much rather be among them than anywhere near a nuclear power plant. So do not try to force your dangerous nuclear power on me. I know better.
I have generated my own electricity for an over 3,000 sq ft home with solar with a generator backup. As for wind, I have been among the wind farms, and lived by one. I would much rather be among them than anywhere near a nuclear power plant. So do not try to force your dangerous nuclear power on me. I know better.
Thats fine for suburbia. Think we got enough roof top space in NYC for windmills and solar panels? Nuclear power, while it has drawbacks, has benifits. Like independance! Radiation does cause harm, But so do fossil fuels! Coal burning and petroleum products do big damage that is totally free in atmosphere. Least nuclear waste can be contained in one area. Child hood cancers run in kind of funny hot zones in the US. Many studies show that people in the path of electrical plant smoke trails( exhaust corridors) get higher incedences of rare cancers. I knew kids like this in NY, western plants fumes run along naturally formed wind paths and hit Orange County NY among other places. Kids had rare cancers. A few of them were in my kids classes or on his little league teams. It seems nuclear power gets fully described as dangerous, yet fossil fuels do not!! Tell me do you drive a car? And does your employer have SOLAR power?
I still do not hear you stating you want the waste in your house. There is the clean hydo-electric also. It would seem that only those who work for nuclear energy projects want to force the waste on the rest of us. As for my employer, I have retired to enjoy the off grid life style a long time ago. I do not want your toxic trash in my back yard. Have you heard about those poor saps that were working with nuclear waste in Area 51 (oh yes, I remember, it does not exist). How about those Cruise Missles that were flying over your area. Boy oh boy, your politicians quickly got rid of them and put them out over my area also.
Why is it that you think the rest of the country must pay for your wanting to have nuclear power? <_<
Why is it that you think the rest of the country must pay for your wanting to have nuclear power? <_<
QUOTE(Just Thinking @ Jan 18 2005, 12:58 PM)
I still do not hear you stating you want the waste in your house.
As of 2003, the United States accumulated about 49,000 metric tons of spent nuclear fuel from nuclear reactors. In addition, there will be about 22,000 canisters of solid defense-related radioactive waste for future disposal in a repository.
To put this in perspective, if we were to take all the nuclear waste produced to date in the United States and stack it side-by-side, end-to-end, it would cover an area about the size of a football field to a depth of about ten feet.
How Much Nuclear Waste is in the United States?
This means that all of the nuclear waste in the USA to date could be placed inside of a structure the size of a Wal-Mart Super Store. And, a large percentage of the waste is spent fuel, which can be re-used in future advanced reactors to generate about 60 times more energy than it already has produced.
You keep asking "do you want the waste in your house". I don't want any waste in my house. If the question is "are you afraid of nuclear waste", the answer is no. Why? Because I trust the containment technology.
Current storage methods
Dry Cask Storage of Spent Nuclear Fuel
The storage technology is safer than riding in an airplane. Why do people take the "risk" of riding in an airplane? Why do people take any risks?
Fear of nuclear radiation and nuclear waste is like any other fear. We need to know what it is we are afraid of and why. We need to understand the real danger. And we need to understand the benefits compared to the risks.
Why do people ride in airplanes?
QUOTE
It would seem that only those who work for nuclear energy projects want to force the waste on the rest of us.
Would it make a difference to you if all of the nuclear power plants were public property, and everyone who worked for nuclear energy projects were public employees?
QUOTE
There is the clean hydo-electric
John Muir, the famous American naturalist, opposed building hydroelectric dams because they destroy canyons and valleys and disrupt the natural environment. I believe if John Muir were alive today, he would support the development of nuclear energy because nuclear power plants produce no emissions and do not displace or destroy wilderness areas.
QUOTE(Just Thinking @ Jan 18 2005, 01:58 PM)
I still do not hear you stating you want the waste in your house. There is the clean hydo-electric also. It would seem that only those who work for nuclear energy projects want to force the waste on the rest of us. As for my employer, I have retired to enjoy the off grid life style a long time ago. I do not want your toxic trash in my back yard. Have you heard about those poor saps that were working with nuclear waste in Area 51 (oh yes, I remember, it does not exist). How about those Cruise Missles that were flying over your area. Boy oh boy, your politicians quickly got rid of them and put them out over my area also.
Why is it that you think the rest of the country must pay for your wanting to have nuclear power? <_<
Why is it that you think the rest of the country must pay for your wanting to have nuclear power? <_<
I bet you didn't sell your car. Were you ever the benificiary of the power grid? HMMMM now you want to decide others rights? Well you send me bill of sale on your car, give up your licsence, and only shop,eat,reside,visit,or go to Solar or enviromentally freindly energy sources first!! I want energy independence with less airborne contaminents. Solar, hydro-electric, wind or nuclear. Lot better to supply our own power then have to fight for oil. Spending development money on elctrical alternatives to petroleum fuels would be great. Till you stop burning noxiuos fumes, that fly over my skies, don't cry over a few thousand acres of land thats contaminated. Lead and pcb's are being replaced by all kinds of new gasoline additives by the way. Not to mention your mercury heading this way....You are polluting my air, my water, and my life. Get off your high horse.
Just Thinking (Buzzard Boy):
I think these other guys are right on the way they are looking at this, but I also don't think it's just a "want." Not if we want to maintain a lifestyle close to what we've got in the good ole US of A now.
You know most people out there don't want to tinker. They want life simple. I'll betcha that you like to tinker with you independent power supply. Most people don't want to do that. I'll also bet that unless you live on some far off North Forty that the payback for all the money and time you put into your own power system will be many years hence.
It wouldn't bother me one hoot to live next to a Nuke plant. You know why? They are very clean and they pay big taxes to the local government. Big taxes mean good roads, good schools, fine parks and other good services. I wouldn't get that from a Windfarm. All I'd get there would be some dead birds dropping in and whirring noises.
Everyone can't do what you do. Everyone doesn't want to. The sun doesn't shine much in some parts of the country. When it's forty below outside and the wind is howling, I want power from the utility to keep my furnace blower going. I don't want to spend my little free time scrounging wood. I don't want my light to come from kerosene lights and candles. I want an electric pump. I don't want to pump my water by hand and have to haul it in for my use. I want a reliable refrigerator with a full size freezer. Some folks can live like my old Grandma used to if they want, but I sure don't want to.
Now a question for you buzzard boy, why are you against the people that promote Nuke power? Are you that intolerant of the ways of others that you don't want anyone not living as you so proudly do?
Don't get me wrong, I'm for wind power and I'm for you being able to live in an energy efficient cave if you want. I'm just tryin' to understand your viewpoint.
QUOTE
Why is it that you think the rest of the country must pay for your wanting to have nuclear power
I think these other guys are right on the way they are looking at this, but I also don't think it's just a "want." Not if we want to maintain a lifestyle close to what we've got in the good ole US of A now.
You know most people out there don't want to tinker. They want life simple. I'll betcha that you like to tinker with you independent power supply. Most people don't want to do that. I'll also bet that unless you live on some far off North Forty that the payback for all the money and time you put into your own power system will be many years hence.
It wouldn't bother me one hoot to live next to a Nuke plant. You know why? They are very clean and they pay big taxes to the local government. Big taxes mean good roads, good schools, fine parks and other good services. I wouldn't get that from a Windfarm. All I'd get there would be some dead birds dropping in and whirring noises.
Everyone can't do what you do. Everyone doesn't want to. The sun doesn't shine much in some parts of the country. When it's forty below outside and the wind is howling, I want power from the utility to keep my furnace blower going. I don't want to spend my little free time scrounging wood. I don't want my light to come from kerosene lights and candles. I want an electric pump. I don't want to pump my water by hand and have to haul it in for my use. I want a reliable refrigerator with a full size freezer. Some folks can live like my old Grandma used to if they want, but I sure don't want to.
Now a question for you buzzard boy, why are you against the people that promote Nuke power? Are you that intolerant of the ways of others that you don't want anyone not living as you so proudly do?
Don't get me wrong, I'm for wind power and I'm for you being able to live in an energy efficient cave if you want. I'm just tryin' to understand your viewpoint.
QUOTE(Just Thinking @ Jan 18 2005, 04:33 AM)
Do you?? Do you store the waste in your back yard? I doubt it. Do they want to store the waste in their back yards? I never heard any of them requesting to live with it in their yards.
If it is such marvelous stuff, why are they trying to store it in my back yard in an earthquake zone??
If it is such marvelous stuff, why are they trying to store it in my back yard in an earthquake zone??
Actually, I used to live within 10 miles of two nuclear reactors (Zion, IL), and now that I'm down in Champaign, I still live about 20 miles downwind of two more nuclear reactors (Clinton, IL).
I'm perfectly fine with putting part of Yucca mountain a block down the street from my house, especially if it meant they'd be looking for highly paid engineers and union workers to work there and if it wouldn't make the less reasonable NIMBYs drive down the price of my house more than a few thousand dollars.
I think your question about radioactive waste in my basement is an unfair one- my house doesn't have 6 feet of concrete between me and the waste, and it certainly didn't have crack QA teams obsessing over the construction, but I'm not deathly afraid of radioactive waste being stored in my basement, especially if the waste has been out of the reactor for a few decades. Naturally, I'd also have several engineers watching the waste and measuring the dose of radiation I'd be getting, as well. If they found and mitigated any Radon coming out of my basement, my dose of radiation might actually decrease.
QUOTE
I bet you didn't sell your car. Were you ever the benificiary of the power grid? HMMMM now you want to decide others rights? Well you send me bill of sale on your car, give up your licsence, and only shop,eat,reside,visit,or go to Solar or enviromentally freindly energy sources first!! I want energy independence with less airborne contaminents. Solar, hydro-electric, wind or nuclear. Lot better to supply our own power then have to fight for oil. Spending development money on elctrical alternatives to petroleum fuels would be great. Till you stop burning noxiuos fumes, that fly over my skies, don't cry over a few thousand acres of land thats contaminated. Lead and pcb's are being replaced by all kinds of new gasoline additives by the way. Not to mention your mercury heading this way....You are polluting my air, my water, and my life. Get off your high horse.
I hope we're not starting to sound like the folks on the Bushcountry.org forums. Nuclear energy is a political view, not a personal one. Also, the OP lives next to a wind farm, and I think that almost everyone drives a (however fuel-efficient) car. (Electricity won't translate easily into transportation for at least another 10 years.)
It is interesting to note that the Nuclear Energy group donated at least
$100,000.00 to The Bush Coronation that occured today. So you are backing them, very interesting. As I have said before, it is the big business Bushies that is trying to force the toxic mess on the rest of us.
$100,000.00 to The Bush Coronation that occured today. So you are backing them, very interesting. As I have said before, it is the big business Bushies that is trying to force the toxic mess on the rest of us.
QUOTE(Freedom4all @ Jan 16 2005, 04:30 PM)
How big of a problem is nuclear waste?
... The first time I read something about the volume of nuclear waste produced by a nuclear power plant, I could not believe what I was reading. The author wrote: "One thing I was always concerned about was Nuclear waste, until I learned that if I lived to the age of 80 and all the energy I ever used in my lifetime came from Nuclear energy, that I would have created a golf-ball sized piece of waste. When taken with the consideration of the pollutants that fossil fuels create, this seemed insignificant to me..."
I asked a nuclear engineer, who specializes in mathematical calculations involving uranium fuel and spent nuclear fuel storage, to tell me if the golf-ball size piece of waste was true. He performed the calculations and concluded that it would be closer to the size of a soft-ball. Eighty years worth of energy!
... The first time I read something about the volume of nuclear waste produced by a nuclear power plant, I could not believe what I was reading. The author wrote: "One thing I was always concerned about was Nuclear waste, until I learned that if I lived to the age of 80 and all the energy I ever used in my lifetime came from Nuclear energy, that I would have created a golf-ball sized piece of waste. When taken with the consideration of the pollutants that fossil fuels create, this seemed insignificant to me..."
I asked a nuclear engineer, who specializes in mathematical calculations involving uranium fuel and spent nuclear fuel storage, to tell me if the golf-ball size piece of waste was true. He performed the calculations and concluded that it would be closer to the size of a soft-ball. Eighty years worth of energy!
Actually, this is misleading. Yes, the "nuclear waste" from the fuel is quite small in volume. But remember that, eventually, the entire plant itself (the primary side) becomes radioactive (the irradiated piping, reactor vessel, crud from the primary coolant etc.)
I think that nuclear power can be made to work, but we really need to rethink the relationship between nuclear power and big business as the safest plants are probably not going to be made by someone who is really into cutting costs.
QUOTE(Just Thinking @ Jan 20 2005, 08:36 PM)
It is interesting to note that the Nuclear Energy group donated at least
$100,000.00 to The Bush Coronation that occured today. So you are backing them, very interesting. As I have said before, it is the big business Bushies that is trying to force the toxic mess on the rest of us.
$100,000.00 to The Bush Coronation that occured today. So you are backing them, very interesting. As I have said before, it is the big business Bushies that is trying to force the toxic mess on the rest of us.
I see that you have a link to the "Cost of War" counter in your signature line.
Here is what I am "backing":
www.AmericanEnergyIndependence.com/nationalsecurity.html
Energy Independence and National Security
You will find the Cost of War counter on that page too.
QUOTE(ollie @ Jan 21 2005, 12:17 PM)
... I think that nuclear power can be made to work, but we really need to rethink the relationship between nuclear power and big business as the safest plants are probably not going to be made by someone who is really into cutting costs.
I agree. I think Public Utilities (not stock owned - but owned by the public, like a public library or park) with a mandate to "serve" their community (and with no golden parachutes or performance bonus for the Managers) would be a safer way to go.
I think we should provide zero-interest financing for communities that want to host a nuclear power plant "in their back yard":
www.AmericanEnergyIndependence.com/zif.html
QUOTE(Just Thinking @ Jan 20 2005, 08:36 PM)
It is interesting to note that the Nuclear Energy group donated at least
$100,000.00 to The Bush Coronation that occured today. So you are backing them...
$100,000.00 to The Bush Coronation that occured today. So you are backing them...
At risk of going off topic, I want to say that I think you should propose a solution instead of just complaining. Enron, for example, covered their backs by donating equally to both parties. You should be advocating campaign finance reform.
I would like to see legislation that prohibits all "legal entities" from "donating" to political parties, causes or politicians. Who gave corporations Constitutional Rights? Why do corporations have "freedom of speech"? “Legal Entities” are not real people! HELLO!!
As I have said before: Hydro, wind, solar to generate, they are non toxic producing, sustainable. I suggest you check into Real Goods and other sustainable sites that are non-toxic.
In the mean time. Turn on all those pumps that are sitting idle in CA, OK, TX, KS, etc. They are all capable of pumping. They are just turned off to raise the prices for those nice big companies.
Encourage the develolpment of enegy efficient transportation, consumer consumption, etc.. Of course, that would be hard on the big business's.
If you have a nuclear plant in your neighborhood, build a concrete bunker in your yard to store the waste. Of course, that might lower the Value of your property, as most people are not toxic waste fans.
In the mean time. Turn on all those pumps that are sitting idle in CA, OK, TX, KS, etc. They are all capable of pumping. They are just turned off to raise the prices for those nice big companies.
Encourage the develolpment of enegy efficient transportation, consumer consumption, etc.. Of course, that would be hard on the big business's.
If you have a nuclear plant in your neighborhood, build a concrete bunker in your yard to store the waste. Of course, that might lower the Value of your property, as most people are not toxic waste fans.
Ollie:
Good point Ollie, but even with this added waste the volume is still quite small. Nuclear power is a very concentrated form of energy as compared to a coal burning plant. A reactor vessel about 15 ft across and 50 ft high can replace a huge coal burning boiler 12 stories tall. Even a lot of the hot crud traps can be cleaned out.
QUOTE
Actually, this is misleading. Yes, the "nuclear waste" from the fuel is quite small in volume. But remember that, eventually, the entire plant itself (the primary side) becomes radioactive (the irradiated piping, reactor vessel, crud from the primary coolant etc.)
Good point Ollie, but even with this added waste the volume is still quite small. Nuclear power is a very concentrated form of energy as compared to a coal burning plant. A reactor vessel about 15 ft across and 50 ft high can replace a huge coal burning boiler 12 stories tall. Even a lot of the hot crud traps can be cleaned out.
Just thinkin:
What is the source of this information? I'm not saying it's not true, but you cannot take at face value just anything some old buzzard pukes onto the internet.
QUOTE
It is interesting to note that the Nuclear Energy group donated at least
$100,000.00 to The Bush Coronation that occured today. So you are backing them, very interesting. As I have said before, it is the big business Bushies that is trying to force the toxic mess on the rest of us.
$100,000.00 to The Bush Coronation that occured today. So you are backing them, very interesting. As I have said before, it is the big business Bushies that is trying to force the toxic mess on the rest of us.
What is the source of this information? I'm not saying it's not true, but you cannot take at face value just anything some old buzzard pukes onto the internet.
What's the matter kiddy? Can't do your own research?
QUOTE(Just Thinking @ Jan 21 2005, 05:41 PM)
What's the matter kiddy? Can't do your own research?
Actually, it is up to the person how made the claim to verify the claim.
You know, like "they have WMD's"
You might check with the N.Y. Times Corp.
January 15, 2005
The Deep-Pocket Donors to Bush's Second Inauguration
ASHINGTON, Jan. 14 - Following is a list of companies, organizations and people who had given $250,000 to President Bush's second inauguration as of Friday, according to the Presidential Inaugural Committee.
A. G. Spanos, Stockton, Calif.
ACS State & Local Solutions Inc., Washington
Alagem Capital Group, Beverly Hills, Calif.
Altria Corporate Services Inc., New York
American Financial, Cincinnati
Ameriquest Capital Corporation, Orange, Calif.
Argent Mortgage Company, Orange, Calif.
AT&T
Bank of America Corporation
Bristol-Myers Squibb
Burlington Northern & Santa Fe Corporation
Carl H. Lindner, Cincinnati
ChevronTexaco
Cinergy Corporation
Corporate Capital, New Orleans
Dr. Miriam Ochshorn Adelson, Las Vegas
Elliott Broidy, Los Angeles
Exxon Mobil Corporation
FedEx Corporation
First Data Corporation, Greenwood Village, Colo.
Ford Motor Company
Golden Eagle Industries Inc., Charlotte, N.C.
The Home Depot
Hunt Consolidated Inc.
Kojaian Ventures, Bloomfield Hills, Mich.
Long Beach Acceptance Corporation, Paramus, N.J.
Marriott International
Marriott Vacation Club International
Nancy and Rich Kinder, Houston
National Association of Home Builders
Nelson Peltz, New York
New Energy Corporation, South Bend, Ind.
Occidental Petroleum Corporation
Pfizer Inc.
Ritz-Carlton Hotel Company
Rooney Holdings Inc., Tulsa, Okla.
S. Davis Phillips, High Point, N.C.
Sallie Mae Inc., Reston, Va.
Sheldon G. Adelson, Las Vegas
Southern Company
Stephens Group Inc., Little Rock, Ark.
Strongbow Technologies, Corp., Burtonsville, Md.
Susan and Michael Dell, Austin, Tex.
T. Boone Pickens, Dallas
Time Warner
Timken Company, Canton, Ohio
Town and Country Credit, Irvine, Calif.
United Parcel Service
United Technologies
UST Inc., Greenwich, Conn.
Wachovia Corporation
Washington Television Center, Washington
Copyright 2005 The New York Times Company
<_<
January 15, 2005
The Deep-Pocket Donors to Bush's Second Inauguration
ASHINGTON, Jan. 14 - Following is a list of companies, organizations and people who had given $250,000 to President Bush's second inauguration as of Friday, according to the Presidential Inaugural Committee.
A. G. Spanos, Stockton, Calif.
ACS State & Local Solutions Inc., Washington
Alagem Capital Group, Beverly Hills, Calif.
Altria Corporate Services Inc., New York
American Financial, Cincinnati
Ameriquest Capital Corporation, Orange, Calif.
Argent Mortgage Company, Orange, Calif.
AT&T
Bank of America Corporation
Bristol-Myers Squibb
Burlington Northern & Santa Fe Corporation
Carl H. Lindner, Cincinnati
ChevronTexaco
Cinergy Corporation
Corporate Capital, New Orleans
Dr. Miriam Ochshorn Adelson, Las Vegas
Elliott Broidy, Los Angeles
Exxon Mobil Corporation
FedEx Corporation
First Data Corporation, Greenwood Village, Colo.
Ford Motor Company
Golden Eagle Industries Inc., Charlotte, N.C.
The Home Depot
Hunt Consolidated Inc.
Kojaian Ventures, Bloomfield Hills, Mich.
Long Beach Acceptance Corporation, Paramus, N.J.
Marriott International
Marriott Vacation Club International
Nancy and Rich Kinder, Houston
National Association of Home Builders
Nelson Peltz, New York
New Energy Corporation, South Bend, Ind.
Occidental Petroleum Corporation
Pfizer Inc.
Ritz-Carlton Hotel Company
Rooney Holdings Inc., Tulsa, Okla.
S. Davis Phillips, High Point, N.C.
Sallie Mae Inc., Reston, Va.
Sheldon G. Adelson, Las Vegas
Southern Company
Stephens Group Inc., Little Rock, Ark.
Strongbow Technologies, Corp., Burtonsville, Md.
Susan and Michael Dell, Austin, Tex.
T. Boone Pickens, Dallas
Time Warner
Timken Company, Canton, Ohio
Town and Country Credit, Irvine, Calif.
United Parcel Service
United Technologies
UST Inc., Greenwich, Conn.
Wachovia Corporation
Washington Television Center, Washington
Copyright 2005 The New York Times Company
<_<
Hmmm, it looks a lot like Lou Dobbs' CNN list of companies that are "EXPORTING AMERICA". 
I see a pattern here... could there be a connection between our oil dependence and our future economic dependence?
I see a pattern here... could there be a connection between our oil dependence and our future economic dependence?
Energy contributions to GOP
Try checking the above line for some further GOP donations by the Energy Big Wigs.
The way the new contributers to this web site are siding with the Big Bush group, it is starting to sound like we have been infiltrated by the GOP Big Guns.
Try checking the above line for some further GOP donations by the Energy Big Wigs.
The way the new contributers to this web site are siding with the Big Bush group, it is starting to sound like we have been infiltrated by the GOP Big Guns.
If it is so great , why must they donate so much money to the GOP to push it?
http://www.opensecrets.org/industires/contrib.asp?Ind=E
http://www.opensecrets.org/industires/contrib.asp?Ind=E
QUOTE(Just Thinking @ Jan 21 2005, 06:16 PM)
If it is so great , why must they donate so much money to the GOP to push it?
http://www.opensecrets.org/industires/contrib.asp?Ind=E
http://www.opensecrets.org/industires/contrib.asp?Ind=E
Hello Just Thinking,
That is a good question.
The first post in this thread quotes James Lovelock who is NOT saying that nuclear is "so great". What he is saying, is that the alternative is "much worse" --Global Warming is a looming threat. But, the vast majority of people, including liberals do not want to be without energy-on-demand.
The American people have not been willing to support renewable energy. Bill Clinton was President for eight years, why did he and Al Gore allow coal and gas power plants to be built? Solar energy went begging in California. The USA has yet to build a GigaWatt solar power plant. We cannot blame that on Republicans alone, it is the apathy of the American people and the failure of Leadership in both parties.
The "McDonalds" fast-everything generation does not have the patience to "conserve energy" or go "back to nature".
I love solar energy. (Wind, I am waiting to see what the bird fatality is going to be.) A couple of months ago, or so, I was a guest on a radio talk show discussing American Energy Independence. The radio station was in Florida and Hurricane Ivan had just paid a visit. It was then that I realized that if Florida had relied on solar energy for their base-load electric power, the solar panels would have been destroyed and it would have taken months to rebuild.
Pensacola, Florida, after Hurricane Ivan
A Hurricane cannot harm a nuclear power plant.
Dr. Lovelock is pointing out that the anti-nuke position is causing more coal and gas power plants to be built. Pouring CO2 into the atmosphere.
Is that what you want?
We can deal with the nuclear waste. It is an engineering problem that has been solved.
We may not be able to deal with the consequences of Global warming.
There is no way to engineer containing a radioactive contaminant that generates heat, irradiates it's own container, and has a half life of tens of thousands of years!
The only safe place for the waste is in the Sun or YOUR backyard (as long as you live on the other side of the country, and are downwind, and downhill from me)!
The only safe place for the waste is in the Sun or YOUR backyard (as long as you live on the other side of the country, and are downwind, and downhill from me)!
As far as the claims of "solving" the problem of the rods using Breeders! This does not take into account the irradiation of all equipment that comes in contact or proximity with radioactive material!
Pipes, Tanks, Valves, Barrels, Walls, Oil, Lubricants, Wire, Holders, Brackets..etc! All these pieces of equipment have to be continously replaced and contained, when they become too radioactive, or just wear out!
Plus, transporting the "lower level" radioactive waste is hazardous as well!
Pipes, Tanks, Valves, Barrels, Walls, Oil, Lubricants, Wire, Holders, Brackets..etc! All these pieces of equipment have to be continously replaced and contained, when they become too radioactive, or just wear out!
Plus, transporting the "lower level" radioactive waste is hazardous as well!
QUOTE(Freedom4all @ Jan 21 2005, 06:11 PM)
Hmmm, I actually had to read that chapter for my energy policy/ nuclear engineering course at college. It's a fun read if you have the time.
QUOTE
Good point Ollie, but even with this added waste the volume is still quite small. Nuclear power is a very concentrated form of energy as compared to a coal burning plant. A reactor vessel about 15 ft across and 50 ft high can replace a huge coal burning boiler 12 stories tall. Even a lot of the hot crud traps can be cleaned out.
Eino, you'd probably know more about this than I would, but doesn't the reactor vessel also only stay mildly radioactive for only a few hundred years? If I remember correctly, the only waste that stays radioactive for more than five hundred or so years is the spent fuel.
QUOTE
There is no way to engineer containing a radioactive contaminant that generates heat, irradiates it's own container, and has a half life of tens of thousands of years!
The only safe place for the waste is in the Sun or YOUR backyard (as long as you live on the other side of the country, and are downwind, and downhill from me)!
The only safe place for the waste is in the Sun or YOUR backyard (as long as you live on the other side of the country, and are downwind, and downhill from me)!
First of all, let's clear something up. Radiation doesn't make anything radioactive. Additionally, it doesn't change chemical properties on anything except for the most complex chemicals (like DNA, and possibly a few chemicals in meats that affect the taste). Neutrons from a nuclear reaction such do make certain things radioactive, and have the potential to change chemical properties. That's why reactor vessels are good for only 50 or maybe 60 years. After the reaction has finished, the spent fuel emits radiation, but it doesn't emit a whole lot of neutrons. Feel free to talk with anyone who knows about nuclear energy to confirm this.
Did you know that about a billion years ago, there was a natural nuclear reaction that took place in Africa? You can look it up on google by searching for "Oklo nuclear"?
If mother nature can do it by accident, as close as 50 feet to the earth's surface, we can do it hundreds of feet underground. Even if we can't, and lose some of the material, it'll still beat global warming from the coal industry.
QUOTE(TheRestofUs @ Jan 21 2005, 07:37 PM)
As far as the claims of "solving" the problem of the rods using Breeders! This does not take into account the irradiation of all equipment that comes in contact or proximity with radioactive material!
Pipes, Tanks, Valves, Barrels, Walls, Oil, Lubricants, Wire, Holders, Brackets..etc! All these pieces of equipment have to be continously replaced and contained, when they become too radioactive, or just wear out!
Plus, transporting the "lower level" radioactive waste is hazardous as well!
Pipes, Tanks, Valves, Barrels, Walls, Oil, Lubricants, Wire, Holders, Brackets..etc! All these pieces of equipment have to be continously replaced and contained, when they become too radioactive, or just wear out!
Plus, transporting the "lower level" radioactive waste is hazardous as well!
Again, almost all radioactive waste, aside from the fuel rods, stops being radioactive after a few hundred years. Some radioactive waste becomes safe after a few minutes; some after a few hours, some after a few years, some after a few decades, but very little waste beside the fuel rods stays radioactive for more than a few centuries.
QUOTE(GoIllini @ Jan 21 2005, 08:55 PM)
First of all, let's clear something up. Radiation doesn't make anything radioactive.
True, but the problem with waste storage is the possible spread of contamination.
The fear lots of people have comes from your basic photos of old, rusty barrells of radioactive waste.
There is also the security problem as well.
I'm not saying that these issues can't be worked out! But we really need a deliberate approach to this with heavy government involvement (e. g., the way that France approaches this); doing it by some purely "free enterprise" system won't cut it.
Just Thinking:
Thanks for providing the link. After a bit of editing I got there. Unfortunately, it wasn't focused. The link could have included contributions from energy companies such as coal, oil, natural gas, etc. as well as from Nuke companies.
I will assume you are correct. Most big companies buy a piece of their favorite politicians and Nuke companies are probably no exception. I do not condemn them for this because, unfortunately, this seems to be the way the "game" is played in the US of A.
Thanks for providing the link. After a bit of editing I got there. Unfortunately, it wasn't focused. The link could have included contributions from energy companies such as coal, oil, natural gas, etc. as well as from Nuke companies.
I will assume you are correct. Most big companies buy a piece of their favorite politicians and Nuke companies are probably no exception. I do not condemn them for this because, unfortunately, this seems to be the way the "game" is played in the US of A.
Nuclear Power Will Kill Us All In Time.
Chernobyl and the Collapse of Soviet Society
http://www.ratical.org/radiation/Chernobyl...rnobylCoSS.html
http://www.mothersalert.org/chernobyl.html
COMMENTARY ON
CHERNOBYL VICTIMS
Russell Hoffman and Pamela O'Brien
The theory that the Ukrainian Ministry of Heath inflates the number of dead from Chernobyl in order to increase funding to them is false. First, we now have plenty of data to show that there are significantly increased rates of radiation-induced diabetes, thyroid cancer (especially in children), leukemia, chromosome aberrations and a long list of other illnesses (thyroid cancer in children has increased ten-fold around Chernobyl, for example).
Second, the idea that the Ukrainian Ministry of Health was exaggerating the deaths is an idea being pushed within the official halls of the nuclear mafia because the truth was and is so devastating to their industry. Indeed, Alla Yaroshinskaya in her book "Chernobyl: The Forbidden Truth" (Jon Carpenter Publishing Co., PO Box 129, Oxford, OX1 4PH England, distributed in the U.S.A. by InBook, PO Box 120261, 140 Commerce St., East Haven, CT 06512) provides what I think is ample documentation to indicate that deaths and other health effects have been purposefully and seriously UNDERestimated around Chernobyl (the book has a forward by eminent physician Dr. John W. Gofman).
Epidemiological data is available from the Belarus Institute for Hereditary Diseases in Minsk (zip code 220053), and published in the Japanese publication Gijutsu-To-Ningn #283, January - February 1998. (Hiroshima Bunker Woman's Junior College helped with the document, at Asaminami - Ku in Hiroshima.)
It is entirely possible that the true number of dead far exceeds the numbers estimated by even the Ukrainian Ministry of Health, who after all are only counting the deaths within a very localized area. They are not counting the random cancers, leukemias and birth defects that occur an extremely difficult-to-measure (low) rates around the world, but among billions and billions of people.
The Ukrainian Ministry of Health estimates are stunning: From Page 8, Permanent Peoples' Tribunal Session on Chernobyl: Environmental, Health and Human Rights Implications, Vienna, Austria, 12-15 April, 1996:
"The minister of health for the Ukraine has estimate that about 125,000 deaths attributable to the disaster have occurred over the last 10 years".
The panel was full of distinguished persons and the testimony was likewise from highly qualified individuals -- the list goes on for pages and pages. The Tribunal also explored in detail the worldwide cover-up about the effects of all forms of radiation. And the deaths go on and on too --150,000 by now? Probably that many, if not more.
WHO alone is insufficient to produce yet another report. We need outside experts in the medical, biological, environmental and financial consequences of radiological dispersals. WHO are part of the global structure that, as Pamela put it, "hasn't exactly come out condemning the entire global nuclear situation in a loud voice".
ALARA stands for "As Low As Reasonably Achievable". It's definition is in part 20 of the U.S. code of Federal Regulation of the U. S. NRC for exposure to radiation. All ALARA means is that, depending on the amount of money that any nuclear industry wishes to spend on protection of the environment and people, and depending on available technology, that is what they can use! So if you say, as a nuclear producer, "I only intend to spend $10 on keeping emissions as low as reasonably achievable, and that's all the technology that is available" its OKAY!
Dr. John W. Gofman has stated in front of federal judges in U.S. Federal courts that this constitutes "planned deaths":
Question by the court:
"What does ALARA..."
Answer:
"It permits deaths."
Question:
"Permits human deaths?"
Answer:
"Yes, because ALARA does not say -- see, the only way you could avoid deaths from the nuclear fuel cycle is to have zero releases. ALARA says keep the releases as low as you can reasonably achieve with the economics that you want to spend on it, and the equipment that you have available and so forth. So it is a planned emission of radioactivity, and that in effect means planned deaths." -- Dr. John Gofman, in conversation with the court, October 2nd, 1978, Jeannine Honicker versus the United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission in Federal Court, Nashville, Tennessee, seeking an injunction to shut down the nuclear fuel cycle.
The judge found out that he had no jurisdiction and that it had to go instead in front of the U.S. Atomic Energy Commission/NRC judges. The petition was denied. (It can be found in "Shut Down: Nuclear Power on Trial: Experts Testify in Federal Court" ISBN 0-913990-21-3, published in 1979 in the U. S. by The Book Publishing Company, 156 Drakes Lane, Summertown, Tennessee, 38483.)
Atomic Age Timeline Animation:
http://www.animatedsoftware.com/poifu/poifu.swf
GAMMAWATCH Geiger Counter
http://www.gammawatch.com/geiger.htm
GEIGER COUNTERS
http://www.geigercounters.com/
* See also: NucNews Links and Archives (by date) at http://nucnews.net * (Posted for educational and research purposes only, in accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. section 107) *
Chernobyl and the Collapse of Soviet Society
http://www.ratical.org/radiation/Chernobyl...rnobylCoSS.html
http://www.mothersalert.org/chernobyl.html
COMMENTARY ON
CHERNOBYL VICTIMS
Russell Hoffman and Pamela O'Brien
The theory that the Ukrainian Ministry of Heath inflates the number of dead from Chernobyl in order to increase funding to them is false. First, we now have plenty of data to show that there are significantly increased rates of radiation-induced diabetes, thyroid cancer (especially in children), leukemia, chromosome aberrations and a long list of other illnesses (thyroid cancer in children has increased ten-fold around Chernobyl, for example).
Second, the idea that the Ukrainian Ministry of Health was exaggerating the deaths is an idea being pushed within the official halls of the nuclear mafia because the truth was and is so devastating to their industry. Indeed, Alla Yaroshinskaya in her book "Chernobyl: The Forbidden Truth" (Jon Carpenter Publishing Co., PO Box 129, Oxford, OX1 4PH England, distributed in the U.S.A. by InBook, PO Box 120261, 140 Commerce St., East Haven, CT 06512) provides what I think is ample documentation to indicate that deaths and other health effects have been purposefully and seriously UNDERestimated around Chernobyl (the book has a forward by eminent physician Dr. John W. Gofman).
Epidemiological data is available from the Belarus Institute for Hereditary Diseases in Minsk (zip code 220053), and published in the Japanese publication Gijutsu-To-Ningn #283, January - February 1998. (Hiroshima Bunker Woman's Junior College helped with the document, at Asaminami - Ku in Hiroshima.)
It is entirely possible that the true number of dead far exceeds the numbers estimated by even the Ukrainian Ministry of Health, who after all are only counting the deaths within a very localized area. They are not counting the random cancers, leukemias and birth defects that occur an extremely difficult-to-measure (low) rates around the world, but among billions and billions of people.
The Ukrainian Ministry of Health estimates are stunning: From Page 8, Permanent Peoples' Tribunal Session on Chernobyl: Environmental, Health and Human Rights Implications, Vienna, Austria, 12-15 April, 1996:
"The minister of health for the Ukraine has estimate that about 125,000 deaths attributable to the disaster have occurred over the last 10 years".
The panel was full of distinguished persons and the testimony was likewise from highly qualified individuals -- the list goes on for pages and pages. The Tribunal also explored in detail the worldwide cover-up about the effects of all forms of radiation. And the deaths go on and on too --150,000 by now? Probably that many, if not more.
WHO alone is insufficient to produce yet another report. We need outside experts in the medical, biological, environmental and financial consequences of radiological dispersals. WHO are part of the global structure that, as Pamela put it, "hasn't exactly come out condemning the entire global nuclear situation in a loud voice".
ALARA stands for "As Low As Reasonably Achievable". It's definition is in part 20 of the U.S. code of Federal Regulation of the U. S. NRC for exposure to radiation. All ALARA means is that, depending on the amount of money that any nuclear industry wishes to spend on protection of the environment and people, and depending on available technology, that is what they can use! So if you say, as a nuclear producer, "I only intend to spend $10 on keeping emissions as low as reasonably achievable, and that's all the technology that is available" its OKAY!
Dr. John W. Gofman has stated in front of federal judges in U.S. Federal courts that this constitutes "planned deaths":
Question by the court:
"What does ALARA..."
Answer:
"It permits deaths."
Question:
"Permits human deaths?"
Answer:
"Yes, because ALARA does not say -- see, the only way you could avoid deaths from the nuclear fuel cycle is to have zero releases. ALARA says keep the releases as low as you can reasonably achieve with the economics that you want to spend on it, and the equipment that you have available and so forth. So it is a planned emission of radioactivity, and that in effect means planned deaths." -- Dr. John Gofman, in conversation with the court, October 2nd, 1978, Jeannine Honicker versus the United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission in Federal Court, Nashville, Tennessee, seeking an injunction to shut down the nuclear fuel cycle.
The judge found out that he had no jurisdiction and that it had to go instead in front of the U.S. Atomic Energy Commission/NRC judges. The petition was denied. (It can be found in "Shut Down: Nuclear Power on Trial: Experts Testify in Federal Court" ISBN 0-913990-21-3, published in 1979 in the U. S. by The Book Publishing Company, 156 Drakes Lane, Summertown, Tennessee, 38483.)
Atomic Age Timeline Animation:
http://www.animatedsoftware.com/poifu/poifu.swf
GAMMAWATCH Geiger Counter
http://www.gammawatch.com/geiger.htm
GEIGER COUNTERS
http://www.geigercounters.com/
* See also: NucNews Links and Archives (by date) at http://nucnews.net * (Posted for educational and research purposes only, in accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. section 107) *
Goillini;
I'm convinced! I say let's put YOU in charge of all nuclear waste! You get a big salary, to store all nuclear waste in one safe spot!
The only condition is that you have to live on that site, with your family!
Want the job?
I'm convinced! I say let's put YOU in charge of all nuclear waste! You get a big salary, to store all nuclear waste in one safe spot!
The only condition is that you have to live on that site, with your family!
Want the job?
QUOTE(TheRestofUs @ Jan 23 2005, 12:16 AM)
Goillini;
I'm convinced! I say let's put YOU in charge of all nuclear waste! You get a big salary, to store all nuclear waste in one safe spot!
The only condition is that you have to live on that site, with your family!
Want the job?
I'm convinced! I say let's put YOU in charge of all nuclear waste! You get a big salary, to store all nuclear waste in one safe spot!
The only condition is that you have to live on that site, with your family!
Want the job?
Well, first of all, my training's in Computer Science, not civil engineering- though I have a big picture idea of how the whole system works- and I know enough of the smaller picture to be pretty confident that it's safe. You'd want a committee of several people with PhDs to design the site, as well as a whole bunch of other independant engineers to audit their work. It would also be helpful to make the plans available to the scientific community in general. In fact, that's what we have going on right now with Yucca Mountain.
Assuming that I were allowed to keep track of the radiation dosage I was getting, I'd be perfectly fine with living immediately next to Yucca mountain. I'm not sure if I'd be able to live on the site; I wouldn't want to get in the way of the operations going on there.
To be honest, Yucca mountain would be MUCH, MUCH safer than Champaign-Urbana, IL. It doesn't have tornadoes; it doesn't have terrible earthquakes that come once every 300 years or so; it doesn't even have lightning strikes. It just has an extra millirem or two of radiation- if any- coming out of the ground. There's probably a 1 in a hundred-thousand chance that I'll lose a family member to a tornado. There's probably a similar risk that I'll lose a member of my family in an earthquake or lightning strike. There's close to a 1 in 1.25 million chance that an extra millirem of radiation, each would cause a member of my family to die from cancer, assuming that you still beleive that there's a linear correspondence between cancer and radiation in low doses of radiation. (If you don't beleive that, the extra millirem wouldn't hurt my family one bit.)
I'm not the only one who'd be willing to live next to Yucca Mountain. My Nuclear Engineering professor said that he'd be willing to live there, too, as long as he could be assured that above-ground testing of nuclear weapons in the Nevada Test Range, right next to Yucca Mountain, would never resume. It's interesting that he has some concern about somewhat modest doses of radiation (50 or 60 millirems from nuclear testing).
On the other hand, I would not want to live next to a coal power plant. Do you know how much ash those plants generate? Do you know where that ash ends up on a windy day? Do you know what's in that ash? If you had to pick between living next to Yucca Mountain and a coal power plant, where would you live? Would you take the millirem of radiation- probably less than three days' worth of just living anywhere in the U.S.- or would you prefer to worry about lung cancer?
Every time you flip the light switch on at night, that electricity has to come from somewhere. Chances are that unless your state's been blessed with lots of hydroelectric resources, at least 95% of that energy is coming from either nuclear or a fossil fuel. Wind and solar energy are great- and I hope that their share of our energy mix can increase at the rate of at least 25% a year. However, at that rate, it's going to take decades for it to start replacing traditional sources of energy.
Until then, we need to be realistic enough to keep the electricity flowing. Let's build a few more nuclear plants, rather than coal or other greenhouse gas emitting plants, just so we can tide the country over until wind, solar, and possibly nuclear fusion can take over.
Did I hear your right. NO EARTHQUAKES.
B...S WE HAVE EARTHQUAKES HERE>
You said you were computer person. NOT a geologist or expert, nor do you live here in this area. YUCCA MOUNTAIN DOES GET THE SHAKES. This whole area does. My roof had to be repaired after the last one. My well was damaged also, etc.
B...S WE HAVE EARTHQUAKES HERE>
You said you were computer person. NOT a geologist or expert, nor do you live here in this area. YUCCA MOUNTAIN DOES GET THE SHAKES. This whole area does. My roof had to be repaired after the last one. My well was damaged also, etc.
.
Don't know much about the topic, except I have a healthy respect for Murphys Law.
Three Mile Island Map
And then there's those pesky unexpected side effects....
Fission is your friend!
Don't know much about the topic, except I have a healthy respect for Murphys Law.
Three Mile Island Map
And then there's those pesky unexpected side effects....
Fission is your friend!
Oh yes, your professor said. Well, he does not live here, to get woke up in the middle of the night by a quake and hope your roof stays up over your head. He had better take some geology courses as well as his nuclear if he is to be an expert on the storage of the waste.
And, don't tell me it was a UFO from area 51 that woke me up. I've seen a lot of their cute little test items. They are working more the the stealth capability than trying to produce a sonic boom capable of a 4.5-5.0 on the scale.
And, don't tell me it was a UFO from area 51 that woke me up. I've seen a lot of their cute little test items. They are working more the the stealth capability than trying to produce a sonic boom capable of a 4.5-5.0 on the scale.
Hi GoIllin
We do get lightning strikes, and the resulting fires, quite often around here. For someone who, apparently has never lived out here. to tell me what my weather is like is strange. To say the least. Normally the BLM just lets the fires burn themselves out unless they get too close to our houses out here. We get fantastic lightning shows, 80+ mph winds that blow the big hotel neon signs down in Las Vegas.
If you take even an introductory meteorolgy course you would be aware that tornados can happen (and do) anywhere, even in Hawaii. Not as frequently as in tornado alley perhaps, but they can and do occur.
As for living near a coal generating plant, I did as a kid. Only a block away. My father worked for the Edison company in Chicago. I am still alive from that, and my father lived to a ripe old age, and my mother also (95). People that worked in area 51 with the atomic junk, the majority are either dead or ill. Oh, I forgot, Area 51 doesn't exist.
By the way, did you ever see the movie Erin Brockovich. That was over at Hinkley, CA. not too far from here as the buzzard flies. Another fine example of the power companies disreguard for human life. That was NOT a coal burning plant, nor was it Solar at the time.
lplant expansion
We do get lightning strikes, and the resulting fires, quite often around here. For someone who, apparently has never lived out here. to tell me what my weather is like is strange. To say the least. Normally the BLM just lets the fires burn themselves out unless they get too close to our houses out here. We get fantastic lightning shows, 80+ mph winds that blow the big hotel neon signs down in Las Vegas.
If you take even an introductory meteorolgy course you would be aware that tornados can happen (and do) anywhere, even in Hawaii. Not as frequently as in tornado alley perhaps, but they can and do occur.
As for living near a coal generating plant, I did as a kid. Only a block away. My father worked for the Edison company in Chicago. I am still alive from that, and my father lived to a ripe old age, and my mother also (95). People that worked in area 51 with the atomic junk, the majority are either dead or ill. Oh, I forgot, Area 51 doesn't exist.
By the way, did you ever see the movie Erin Brockovich. That was over at Hinkley, CA. not too far from here as the buzzard flies. Another fine example of the power companies disreguard for human life. That was NOT a coal burning plant, nor was it Solar at the time.
lplant expansion
I am sorry if I sound too harsh on you Nuclear proponets, but, please, do take the 101 geology, meteorology, and each of the other earth sciences as electivies along with your physics majors. Do read up on all of the nuclear accidents that have been reported (that doesn't even include tha ones that have been kept secret by the goverment). Read up on the Area 51 illness's, etc..
Also, you might want to consider, working with environmental groups on your breaks.
Talk to the Cal Poly Student Life's Environmental Council and other groups of that nature.
Nuclear Power Plants cause between 600-1000 deaths a year per million people. The vast majority of them, 80%, are to the plant workers.
The distance from a nuclear power plant also has a direct affect on things such as breast cancer. In a extensive study it was found that, women living near a nuclear reactor had an average of 26-28 deaths from breast cancer per 100,000 women. Women living far from one averaged 22-23 deaths per 100,000.
The $333 million settlement won by Masry and Brockovich from PG&E for exposure of residents to toxic chromium 6 in Hinkley, CA, is the largest legal settlement in U.S. history( to that poin)t. Their crusading story was made into the hit movie, "Erin Brockovich," which won actress Julia Roberts an Academy Award last year. Masry's appearance was sponsored by CAPE, the Environmental Defense Center and Cal Poly Student Life's Environmental Council.
There is a lot to learn out there. No one person can know everyting, but it does help to get a well rounded education.
PS, I did have contact with a nuclear professor and class in my college days also, just in case you want to say I had no knowlege on the subject.
Also, you might want to consider, working with environmental groups on your breaks.
Talk to the Cal Poly Student Life's Environmental Council and other groups of that nature.
Nuclear Power Plants cause between 600-1000 deaths a year per million people. The vast majority of them, 80%, are to the plant workers.
The distance from a nuclear power plant also has a direct affect on things such as breast cancer. In a extensive study it was found that, women living near a nuclear reactor had an average of 26-28 deaths from breast cancer per 100,000 women. Women living far from one averaged 22-23 deaths per 100,000.
The $333 million settlement won by Masry and Brockovich from PG&E for exposure of residents to toxic chromium 6 in Hinkley, CA, is the largest legal settlement in U.S. history( to that poin)t. Their crusading story was made into the hit movie, "Erin Brockovich," which won actress Julia Roberts an Academy Award last year. Masry's appearance was sponsored by CAPE, the Environmental Defense Center and Cal Poly Student Life's Environmental Council.
There is a lot to learn out there. No one person can know everyting, but it does help to get a well rounded education.
PS, I did have contact with a nuclear professor and class in my college days also, just in case you want to say I had no knowlege on the subject.
QUOTE(ollie @ Jan 22 2005, 06:39 PM)
True, but the problem with waste storage is the possible spread of contamination.
The fear lots of people have comes from your basic photos of old, rusty barrells of radioactive waste.
There is also the security problem as well.
I'm not saying that these issues can't be worked out! But we really need a deliberate approach to this with heavy government involvement (e. g., the way that France approaches this); doing it by some purely "free enterprise" system won't cut it.
The fear lots of people have comes from your basic photos of old, rusty barrells of radioactive waste.
There is also the security problem as well.
I'm not saying that these issues can't be worked out! But we really need a deliberate approach to this with heavy government involvement (e. g., the way that France approaches this); doing it by some purely "free enterprise" system won't cut it.
I think you are right, and if everyone would agree that we should move forward, then the problem will get solved. Too much time and effort has gone into opposing nuclear technology, rather than focusing on developing safe engineering solutions. As well as economic solutions.
"If nuclear reactors receive normal maintenance, they will never wear out, and this will profoundly affect the economic performance of the reactors. Time annihilates capital costs. The economic Achilles' heel of nuclear energy has been its high capital cost. In this respect, nuclear energy resembles renewable energy sources such as wind turbines, hydroelectric facilities, and photovoltaic cells, which have high capital costs but low operating expenses. If a reactor lasts beyond its amortization time, the burden of debt falls drastically. Indeed, according to one estimate, fully amortized nuclear reactors with total electricity production costs (operation and maintenance, fuel, and capital costs) below 2 cents per kilowatt hour are possible. Electricity that inexpensive would make it economically feasible to power operations such as seawater desalinization...
If power reactors are virtually immortal, we have in principle achieved nuclear electricity too cheap to meter. But there is a major catch. The very inexpensive electricity does not kick in until the reactor is fully amortized, which means that the generation that pays for the reactor is giving a gift of cheap electricity to the next generation. Because such altruism is not likely to drive investment, the task becomes to develop accounting or funding methods that will make it possible to build the generation capacity that will eventually be a virtually permanent part of society's infrastructure.
If the only benefit of these reactors is to produce less expensive electricity and the market is the only force driving investment, then we will not see a massive investment in nuclear power. But if immortal reactors by their very nature serve purposes that fall outside of the market economy, their original capital cost can be handled in the way that society pays for infrastructure."
-Alvin M. Weinberg is a former director of the Oak Ridge National Laboratory.
QUOTE
- Just Thinking
Nuclear Power Plants cause between 600-1000 deaths a year per million people. The vast majority of them, 80%, are to the plant workers.
The distance from a nuclear power plant also has a direct affect on things such as breast cancer. In a extensive study it was found that, women living near a nuclear reactor had an average of 26-28 deaths from breast cancer per 100,000 women. Women living far from one averaged 22-23 deaths per 100,000.
Nuclear Power Plants cause between 600-1000 deaths a year per million people. The vast majority of them, 80%, are to the plant workers.
The distance from a nuclear power plant also has a direct affect on things such as breast cancer. In a extensive study it was found that, women living near a nuclear reactor had an average of 26-28 deaths from breast cancer per 100,000 women. Women living far from one averaged 22-23 deaths per 100,000.
You know, there are groups who believe extraterrestrials have abducted as many people. Who can prove them wrong?
"We reject nuclear energy with the same unreasoning arguments that our ancestors would have used to reject geothermal energy, the effort to harness the heat of the Earth. Compared with the imaginary dangers of nuclear power, the threat from the intensifying greenhouse effect seems all too real. I wholly support the Green wish to see all energy eventually come from renewable sources but I do not think that we have the time to wait until this happens. Nuclear power is unpopular but it is safer than power from fossil fuel. The worst that could happen, if Chernobyls become endemic, is that we live a little less long in a mildly radioactive world. To me this is preferable to the loss of our hard-won civilization in a greenhouse catastrophe. "
- James Lovelock, preeminent world leader in the development of environmental consciousness.
There is no rational argument to endure more ratioactive pollution and
nuclear weapons proliferation from nuclear power plants. Let this insanity
end.
--------------------
http://www.mothersalert.org/globalwarming2.html
Why Nuclear Power is Not the
Solution to Global Warming
The Institute for Energy and Environmental Research (IEER),
Worldwatch Institute, and Sen. George Mitchell in his book,
World on Fire have all spoken to the potential scale and cost
of Carbon Dioxide offset through the use of nuclear.
“Slowing Global Warming: A Worldwide Strategy”
by Christopher Flavin,
World Watch Paper # 91
published by the Worldwatch Institute, October 1989
“. …for nuclear power to offset even 5 percent of global carbon emissions would require that worldwide nuclear capacity be nearly doubled from today’s level. That means that nuclear is simply not a medium term option for slowing global warming.”
World on Fire
by Senator George Mitchell 1991
“…If nuclear plants replaced all coal-fired plants in the world, global warming could be cut by 20 to 30 percent by the middle of the next century (2050). But it would require bringing a nuclear power plant on line somewhere in the world every one to three days for the next forty years. The cost would be $9 trillion; the pace of construction would be ten times larger (greater?) than any the world has ever seen. Both figures are unthinkable. A totally safe reactor, a totally safe place to dispose of its deadly
wastes, and a totally safe way to keep the wrong kind of nuclear materials from falling into the wrong hands none of these things have been resolved. By the time they are resolved, if they ever can be, it will be too late. The projected global warming will be full upon us.”
Greenhouse Warming: Comparative Analysis of
Nuclear and Efficiency Abatement Strategies
by Bill Keepin and Gregory Katz, Energy Policy,
December 1988
The authors posit a conservative scenario in which one-half of non-fossil energy is supplied by nuclear power with a construction program beginning in 1988.
“…This results in a total nuclear installed capacity of 8,180 GW by the year 2025, equivalent to some 8000 large nuclear power plants. This represents a 20-fold increase in world nuclear capacity, requiring that nuclear plants be built at an average rate of one new 1000 MW plant every 1.61 days for the next 37 years. At an assumed cost of $1.0 billion/1000MW installed, this results in a total capitol cost of 8.39 trillion (1987) dollars, an average of $227 billion each year for 37 years to build the required nuclear plants. Total electricity generation cost is $31.48 trillion, or an average of $787 billion/year. The required capitol investment is economically infeasible for the developing world…”
The authors point out that even with a massive nuclear construction program, the use of fossil fuels will continue to grow.
“ Thus, in this scenario, even bringing a new nuclear plant on line every day and a half for nearly four decades does not prevent annual CO2 emissions from steadily increasing to a value 60% greater than they are today.”
nuclear weapons proliferation from nuclear power plants. Let this insanity
end.
--------------------
http://www.mothersalert.org/globalwarming2.html
Why Nuclear Power is Not the
Solution to Global Warming
The Institute for Energy and Environmental Research (IEER),
Worldwatch Institute, and Sen. George Mitchell in his book,
World on Fire have all spoken to the potential scale and cost
of Carbon Dioxide offset through the use of nuclear.
“Slowing Global Warming: A Worldwide Strategy”
by Christopher Flavin,
World Watch Paper # 91
published by the Worldwatch Institute, October 1989
“. …for nuclear power to offset even 5 percent of global carbon emissions would require that worldwide nuclear capacity be nearly doubled from today’s level. That means that nuclear is simply not a medium term option for slowing global warming.”
World on Fire
by Senator George Mitchell 1991
“…If nuclear plants replaced all coal-fired plants in the world, global warming could be cut by 20 to 30 percent by the middle of the next century (2050). But it would require bringing a nuclear power plant on line somewhere in the world every one to three days for the next forty years. The cost would be $9 trillion; the pace of construction would be ten times larger (greater?) than any the world has ever seen. Both figures are unthinkable. A totally safe reactor, a totally safe place to dispose of its deadly
wastes, and a totally safe way to keep the wrong kind of nuclear materials from falling into the wrong hands none of these things have been resolved. By the time they are resolved, if they ever can be, it will be too late. The projected global warming will be full upon us.”
Greenhouse Warming: Comparative Analysis of
Nuclear and Efficiency Abatement Strategies
by Bill Keepin and Gregory Katz, Energy Policy,
December 1988
The authors posit a conservative scenario in which one-half of non-fossil energy is supplied by nuclear power with a construction program beginning in 1988.
“…This results in a total nuclear installed capacity of 8,180 GW by the year 2025, equivalent to some 8000 large nuclear power plants. This represents a 20-fold increase in world nuclear capacity, requiring that nuclear plants be built at an average rate of one new 1000 MW plant every 1.61 days for the next 37 years. At an assumed cost of $1.0 billion/1000MW installed, this results in a total capitol cost of 8.39 trillion (1987) dollars, an average of $227 billion each year for 37 years to build the required nuclear plants. Total electricity generation cost is $31.48 trillion, or an average of $787 billion/year. The required capitol investment is economically infeasible for the developing world…”
The authors point out that even with a massive nuclear construction program, the use of fossil fuels will continue to grow.
“ Thus, in this scenario, even bringing a new nuclear plant on line every day and a half for nearly four decades does not prevent annual CO2 emissions from steadily increasing to a value 60% greater than they are today.”
This is a "lo-fi" version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.