Because your an average American citizen who doesn't know anything about nuclear physics... hence you should listen to the experts.

Well, as an average American citizen, you're right - I have zero clue about nuclear physics.

What I do have a clue about is how the public has been lied to or just ignored altogether in the past regarding unsafe or out right dangerous situations caused by power and / or chemical plants.

hhhmmmm...trust the experts or treat this situation with caution and skepticism...hhhmmmm...

C'mon, don't you remember when that Japanese nuclear company Tepco was stating over and over that the radiation levels from their failed reactor were safe? Oh wait they weren't?

Don't you remember when BP said the leak from the Deepwater Horizon disaster was minimal? They didn't lie at all did they? Oh wait...

True, but the tree huggers also lied when they claimed there would be an ecological holocaust as a result of the Deepwater Horizon spill in order to get Obama to stop further oil production in the Gulf. All their efforts to document every bit of harm mainly turned out to be an enviromentalist witch hunt.

This link appeared on this same page as these comments.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/46182691/

ecological holocaust

how about murder???

Tritium is a naturally occurring element that people are exposed to at low levels every day. This release is truly not something to be concerned about. Tritium is used in a number of everyday things that we all see and use since it is used commercially to make certain thing glow. From the EPA web site:

It is used in various self-luminescent devices, such as exit signs in buildings, aircraft dials, gauges, luminous paints, and wristwatches. Tritium is also used in life science research, and in studies investigating the metabolism of potential new drugs.

So, if you have a wristwatch with numbers on the face that glow, you are likely walking around with tritium on your wrist. The beta radiation from tritium is so weak that it can not even penetrate the outer layer of your skin. The only way most people would be exposed to tritium would be drinking water containing it or inhaling water vapor containing it. Since virtually all water has some low level of tritium, you are exposed to it daily. This low level of tritium is because tritium is naturally occurring, not because all water supplies are contaminated by industry. In addition to the Tritium that is created in nuclear power plants, it is also naturally created in the upper atmosphere by the interaction of cosmic rays with nitrogen (N14) or deuterium (H2) and falls with rain to the surface and into our groundwater.

In addition, there are too many private citizens who possess or have access to instruments that measure ionizing radiation (Geiger counters, dosimeters) to make a cover up feasible. Most conspiracy theories are ridiculous on the face of them if you just put some effort into thinking them through.

.Dangerous Mind Yes I recall, from 0.27 Milliseverts the so called safe, to 512 Severts, well only a few thousand times more right, and did you notice the continuation of lies? supposed to be on " cold shut down " but the heat and radiation is still rising, so sure,sure you can " trust the Ex Sperts ";-)

chefaz posted this link and its pretty good, it deserves to be further up on the board. As a previous medical researcher I always find it interesting what studies get buried in the U.S but makes light in Europe. ( I have not checked the sources yet--I will come back and delete if I find false info)

http://readersupportednews.org/news-section2/344-208/9671-childhood-leukemia-spikes-near-nuclear-power-plants.

so the article above looked a little strange but it is a legitimate study.

Guess they thing the average American citizen would believe it because the Japanese did. Right? or am I - well - let's see what was the question. Apologize, my head is burried so deep in the sand I could not hear you.

Well, for those of us that are skeptical, they can always go with their prefered method of distraction.

"And in nonrelated news another terrorist plot has been uncovered..." (see, it's working already)

Eagle Averro -

You may want to correct the Sievert vs. millisieverts comment. There's a HUGE difference between the two. You are generally safe (but feel mildly ill) up 2000 - 3000 millisieverts. That translates to 2 -3 sieverts. There are 1000 millisieverts in 1 sievert. Our bodies are very tolerant to damage, it actually takes a decent amount of radiation to cause illness. That being said, it takes only time of being exposed to 1 long range alpha particle to give you cancer. The odds of that occurring are so insanely small that it's never a factor especially given the fact that you're exposed to 2 - 20 mSv per year (depending on location and amount of flights you take).

The average person may not know nuclear physics however, the average person can read, research, and understand facts on their own. So instead of flipping out every time they see something nuclear in the news - they should read and not rely on the government to spoon feed them. I'm blessed in that I don't have to, I already know these facts. However I can't speak for everyone else.

Kallie, this report was also in an MSNBC article not to long ago (I'm having trouble finding the link). It is a legitmate study, however there have been multiple other studies not only in France but also in the UK which have failed to find any link between the two. See here

Why should you believe this? Well, if you won't trust the nuclear experts, then perhaps you'll believe me (an unbiased, observing engineer who actually knows something about this stuff) when I tell you that it's not a threat in any way. Not all forms of radiation are dangerous. Heck, there's radiation coming from the very walls in your house, but you're not in danger. Tritium is only dangerous if you breathe high levels of it (not going to happen in this case) or ingest it somehow, through food or water. Again, that's only for concentrated doses, not the minor elevation caused by the "unusual incident."

You should, on the other hand, be grateful and impressed for the prompt security precautions taken by the plant. At the first sign of trouble, everything shuts down (except essential cooling systems). Honestly, that's about as good as it gets and it shows that the nuclear plants are watching their safety systems like a hawk.

While they are at why aren't they warning us about all the gaseous Dihydrogen monoxide that is mixed in with the tritium?

Ahh, the regular dose of nuclear fear, I was wondering when the next article about this was going to come along. Before long we are going to be seeing articles telling us the that the toilet in the mens room at xyz nuclear plant is clogged and somehow it is because of nuclear radiation and a explosion is imminate or some other nonsense.

In all seriousness though as John Doe said we all can make informed decision and do the research to understand the facts. If it is not clear to anyone now that the mainstream media is biased and more concerned with hype than true facts, I don't know what to do for you.

As far as trusting the government, in this case I think you are fine but again there are plenty of ways to research the information to draw your own conclusion if you have doubts.

Otherwise, do I think we need to use nuclear, yes. However, I do not support the use of light water reactors. If we choose to go this route we need to look at fast reactors. They have the reduced waste output and passive safety features that are needed to really make this work. They can also reuse waste that has already been produced. In going this route it also means we need to stop dragging our feet and get a long term storage facility up and running - we have spent the money at Yucca, don't waste more at a new site, finish and get it going. I will also add in addition we need to continue to research ways to be more energy efficient and use renewable energy whenever we can - specifically solar - and pair that with our new push to get a better base power system. Nuclear being the bridge, with help from renewables, to get to fusion - at which point we still use fusion and renewables in my opinion.

In the end it is time we stop letting the media make up our minds and start make informed conclusions on our own. I'm not a nuclear physicist but these are the conclusions I have drawn doing my own research, right or wrong.

Dunkin H - we don't know the extent of that spill yet and it will likely be years before we do. Just because you can't see it doesn't mean something still isn't there. In that case I don't believe the government.

John Doe-2437959 Here see the Photo, and if you wish follow the Links, http://s220.photobucket.com/albums/dd189/Eagle_Averro/?action=view&current=209111640.jpg

Eagle_Averro

http://atmc.jp/plant/rad/?n=1November 18, 2011 (Friday) Last value: D / W: 119 Sv / h , S / C: .7 Sv / h 11/16 118 0.7 11/15 117 0.7 11/14 123 0.7 11/13 165 0.7 11/08 183 0.7 11/07 206 0.69 11/06 282 0.69 11/05 215 0.69 Notice that the Radiation Values are getting on Average higher, and that they remain high for longer periods, to Me that would indicate cooling problems, what about you?

2 months ago

This is a situation for which Reagan had the right approach: "Trust, But Verify"

Chris-749391 In you costing for Nuclear Power you forgot to add the mining side and processing material ready for use in a reactor, please do that as well for that is the REAL total cost.

Dont forget that since 2011 radiation has been declared good for you :) Its fine, move along nothing to see here ......

Nothing... because your body gets more radiation by standing against a brick wall than from an operating nuclear plant.

tell that to the Japanese operators...

These type of events usually point back to human error. So yeah, do ask the Japanese operators.

So we should just keep building them because we can assume there will never be more human error right?

I live near one of the arguably most dangerous reactors in the country --- TVA's failed and mismanaged Brown's Ferry. (In 2005 the NRC concluded that the 1975 "Incident" at Brown's Ferry was the closest precursor indicent to a reactorr meltdown in history.) So I do worry a little and read a lot.

1) One major issue is that of liability insurance. The nuclear industry as a whole carries only about .5% (one-half of one percent) of the amount of liability insurance that would be necessary to compensate victims of a core breach. In the case of Brown's Ferry, that was only 20 minutes or less away at one point. The nuclear industry is currently lobbying to reduce even that. And who would pick up the tab in the case of a major accident? The good old taxpayer.

2) The licensing procedure is: Relax, you're good for another 20 years. Records clearly show that in the five years after licensing, there is an overall increase in incidents because the operators relax their procedures. This needs to be changed to no more than 2 years with a complete review after every incident (such as the one in the article.)

3) In the US, every nuclear reactor is virtually unique. That is, they are of different designs. At Brown's Ferry there are three reactors and two different designs. This is one reason why French reactors are much, much safer than American reactors. The French use standardized designs that come in different sizes, so even between reactors of different sizes, there is a huge parts commonality. What this means for safety is that every time a problem is found, it is fixed in every reactor out there. Within the design lifetime, French reactors actually get a little safer over time.

4) The design lifetime is a major issue. We keep re-licensing reactors long after their design lifetime is long past. The owners failed to set aside funds to decommission outdated reactors, so they offer little choice to keep them operating, even operating unsafely. And if an accident happens in one of these ancient reactors, who gets the bill? The American taxpayer.

5) Nuclear waste is a major problem still. There is enough high level and mid level nuclear waste in this country to bury Manhattan to a depth of 80 feet. And there is nowhere to put it. The amount of high level waste stored at nuclear sites and elsewhere is now so great that it has become poorly guarded and a very real potential target for terrorists. And it isn't just that a terrorist could make a bomb. It is that they could detonate a conventional bomb at a spent fuel storage site and effectively create a "dirty" bomb that could kill many thousands while makinbg huge areas uninhabitable. And we still have nowhere to store the stuff and no real plans in the works.

6) Licensing or lack of licensing means absolutely nothing. In 1975 Brown's Ferry lost its license because of mismanagement, design problems, and "incidents" but continued to operate (though generating minimal power) until 2006 when its license was "renewed." The NRC admitted that the plant still had serious management and operational issues but that it was just as safe (or unsafe) generating power as not generating power.

Nuclear power CAN be safe and reliable. But the way we do it in this country is neither safe nor reliable. We need better designs and we need standardized designs and we need a NRC that advocates for the taxpayer instead of being a revolving door to jobs with utility companies. And, just in case lightening does strike, we need to make sure that there is adequate emergency planning in place (which there is not currently) and liability insurance to make people whole. his idea that utility companies can buy politicians and be allowed to operate unsafelky and without even the liability insurance to protect us is obscene.

@Chris: You're close, but not quite there.

First off, we have the designs for better reactors. Westinghouse just had the AP1000 Gen III+ reactor approved for construction. I'd recommend looking it up, it's rather fascinating. The problem is that all the reactors in the United States are Gen I technology, and have the associated risks and problems therein. The reason we do not build new reactors, is that there is such strong opposition via court injunctions, endless "impact studies," etc., that construction costs balloon to 10 times what they should be. The standard operating procedure of the uninformed, non-scientific NIMBY public is to make things cost-prohibitive. They succeed at it.

The nuclear waste issue is partly due to our energy policy. France has a closed fuel cycle -- that is, they reprocess spent fuel and reuse it. In America, we use the "one and done" system. If reprocessing plants were subject to the same NIMBY problems, we'd build them. We'd get more burn up from our fuel stocks.

People don't realize how tightly regulated the nuclear industry is. Considering the rate of incident resulting in injury/deaths, you're more likely to die in a plane crash (~1 in 11 million).

@Matt,

Good, well-thought out post. I don't agree with your points, but I learn more from the people I disagree with that from the ones who agree.

I agree that better reactor plans are available. But the issue is not better, it is standardized. If you standardize reactor designs (which is never a requirement here) and you find a problem in one reactor, you fix it in all reactors. This is the most significant step in nuclear powerplant safety that you can make.

No nuclear powerplant every built has been cost effective. To make them look break even, the nuclear energy industry counts only construction and operation costs minus subsidies from the states and federal government. If you look at fully booked costs including waste storage and disposal as well as eventual de-commissioning costs, they don't even make it to break even. And if you add in the cost of even minimal liability insurance, they go deeply into the red. And if you kill the federal subsidies to for-profit utilities, they lose about 50 cents for every dollar invested.

The NRC is filled with people who will retire after 20 years and go immediately into jobs with the very people they regulate. If you make trouble for the for-profit power industry, you do not get that cushy job afterwards. It is noteworthy how many NRC people retired in 2009 so they could evade lobbying rules and shows you how heavily in the pocket of the power industry the NRC people are.

The idea that you are more likely to die in a plane crash is the kind of "straw man" argument that many people use. To be an apt comparison, those planes would have to be carrying thousands more people when they crashed. When you look at a risk matrix, nuclear reactors fall into one corner where the chances of failure are small, but the effects of a failure are huge. Nuclear reactors also fall into the other corner where "incidents" and "unusual events" are common, but the effects tend to be small.

But your comparison to a plane crash is not valid. The odds vary from 1 in 159,000 to 1 in 9.2 million depending on circumstances. The airline industry used to push the 1 in 11 million number that they arrived at by subtracting accidents in both takeoffs and landings on the grounds that taking off and landing was not really "flying." And this sort of gross statistics belie the simple fact that if you die in a airline crash, the odds were 1 in 1.

I should probably qualify my pro-nuclear bias before things go any further.

Currently contracted with DOE-NNSA.

Matt-3468366 You must be a lobbyist, for you have verbiage but few facts.

copy

Chris-749391 In you costing for Nuclear Power you forgot to add the mining side and processing material ready for use in a reactor, please do that as well for that is the REAL total cost.

#1.19 - Wed Feb 1, 2012 8:26 AM EST

@Eagle: You have no idea what you're talking about. Especially since fuel costs have little to do with operating costs of a nuclear power plant. Fuel prices could double, and changes in rates would see little effect.

Assuming I'm a lobbyist is rather clever. I suppose that's your attempt to disqualify my statements by playing into an ad hominem logical fallacy. Good job.

For the record, I have a PhD in computational chemistry, and I do corrosion modeling research at a national lab.

So then tell me, when a Plant is built with a 20 year life, and it then is kept getting licensed beyond that, can YOU as a Scientist AND an Engineer, tell us what the radiation does to the metal and concrete, and why does it become brittle?

On an adjoining question, see earth quake zones, care to tell me how many Nuclear plants had that Math on earthquake probabilities, fit an ACTUAL Model, rather then a Hypothetical that allowed them to be licenced?

So please tell me when you Built a Car, do you take into consideration the Cost of Crude OIL or not?

Eagle,

It may not be the radiation that causes the metal and concrete to become brittle. It could be the heat, it could be the water, it could be the oxygen in the air. That's why new plants should be built. Since they are 20 years old. We have enhanced technology and it is much safer now. But there are too many people that know nothing about nuclear energy except that "nuclear" is dangerous.

bohnmann " We have enhanced technology and it is much safer now. But there are too many people that know nothing about nuclear energy except that "nuclear" is dangerous " so YOU said, and yet you failed to understand what RADIATION does to the structures, why is that?

@Eagle: Look up something called "ISCC." That's what I work on. You can also look up "CASL" while you're at it. That will give you a little insight into what I do.

Matt, and you reply to #2.13 - Thu Feb 2, 2012 9:03 AM EST is?

@Eagle: There are multiple factors. There's something called the CDI (cumulative damage index) which is a combination of radiation-based dislocations (embrittlement), but also effects from thermal effects, e.g. creep, corrosion effects. I work on the cladding. I do not work on the general plant, so I don't know the exact details. On the ID you have chemical corrosion, stress, radiation, and creep. On the outside, you have crud and GTRF. That's all on the fuel rods themselves.

I'd expect that the general workings of the plant, while encountering radiation damage, are also expected to have issues with crud build-up (boron, lithium, etc), and also have to deal with a steam environment as in BWRs.

If you want to know the physics of why it becomes brittle, it's because of fast-neutron bombardment, which causes dislocations and defects in the material, which over time strain the material to the point of mechanical failure.

Eagle,

I fail to understand what it does simply because I have not read it. If I had the desire to investigate it, being a chemist, I would investigate it. My area of scientific focus is not how radioactivity affects metal and concrete.

As to what matt replied, it sounds plausible. Another reason to invest in newer plants to be able to retire older ones.

How do you feel about nuclear magnetic resonance imaging? Would you think that is hazardous? The word nuclear is often misinterpretated as synonymous with nuclear weapons (which are not a real good thing to have around except as a deterrant) and things like nuclear waste (which is also a bad thing to have around).

Matt-3468366 Verry good, thank You, so it is a bit like " electrical conduction" as one part of the material gets bombarded by radiation and heat, over time it becomes saturated, and the stresses then pass on to the ext non saturated section, and that process goes on, till the whole structure is saturated, so tell me what occurs at that stage?

@bohnmann: You're a chemist? Small world, eh? I'm a computational chemist, doing corrosion modeling at the moment. Did you go to the Denver ACS this past fall? I'm trying to see if I can attend in Philadelphia this fall, but we'll see.

@Eagle: Do a little reading. Look up SCC (stress corrosion cracking.) I'm not an engineer, I don't deal with fracture mechanics, but it's not the same as a saturation problem. Stress concentrators, crack tip formation, trans and intergranular cracking, surface roughness, all these are factors.

bohnmann Great Idea, read up on radiation stress on atomic structure of materials, that be a fun topic for you, till then, a hint, there is NO " safe Nuclear power " the only Safe nuclear reactor is the one that we should make better use off, and that one is called " The Sun " try reading a little on that one (joke) have a sense of humour makes life more livable :-)

Eagle and Matt,

Thanks for intelligent rational discussion. So many times discussions like these denegrate to attacks on the other person.

Matt,

I am an analytical chemist for a medical device company. Don't get to many conferences, but I did go to Pittcon last year. It was fun.

Yes thank you, life is more fun when people can learn to share and develop without the need to be polemic.

Perhaps they meant it was too low to be measured accurately?

Perhaps both of you should research things. You're exposed to more tritium by drinking a glass of water than if you were to stand outside this plant while the steam was venting. Not to mention the extremely low energy level of tritium. If I filled a glass jar with 100% tritium and nothing else you could sleep with it next to you and have no ill effects. In fact, there would be no detectable radiation outside the jar because the particles are simply not energetic enough to penetrate the glass. Your skin is even more dense than glass so I'll let you figure that part out.

You're exposed to more tritium by drinking a glass of water than if you were to stand outside this plant while the steam was venting.

Source, please?

@John Doe,

Wrongo Bucko! "Tritium is an isotope of hydrogen, which allows it to readily bind to hydroxyl radicals, forming tritiated water (HTO), and to carbon atoms. Since tritium is a low energy beta emitter, it is not dangerous externally (its beta particles are unable to penetrate the skin), but it is a radiation hazard when inhaled, ingested via food or water, or absorbed through the skin. HTO has a short biological half-life in the human body of 7 to 14 days, which both reduces the total effects of single-incident ingestion and precludes long-term bioaccumulation of HTO from the environment."

To say that it is somehow safe because it has poor penetrating power is really stupid. If you breathed that jar of tritium (it is a gas, not a liquid), it would kill you in a few minutes. Your rationale is a little like saying that lead is not poisonous because you can stand by a block of it and not be harmed. Well, duh! That doesn't mean we want it in our kids' toys.

These images of "safe" isotopes is just BS propaganda put out by the power industry to keep the public mal-informed to their advantage. They have a whole long list of these misleading "straw man" analogies, from chest e-rays to flying in airliners to standing next to brick walls. All are complete mis-statements of fact intended to give the ignorant a false sense of security.

"Tritium has leaked from 48 of 65 nuclear sites in the United States, detected in groundwater at levels exceeding the United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) drinking water standards by up to 375 times." Failing to provide timely information, as per the article, is just one more way that the utility owners have of dealing unethically with the public. But people like you do even more damage by spreading falsehoods (lies) that indicate a complete lack of critical thinkinbg skills and basic knowledge. The NRC, sadly, is in the pocket of the power industry and does virtually nothing to protect the taxpayer from hazard, let alone combatting the BS propaganda that comes from their "owners" upon whom they depend for lucrative jobs once they "retire" from "public service."

@John Doe,

Sorry, but I have to make a correction based on some further checking. It turns out that tritium is extremely difficult to contain. Plastic, rubber, glass and even mild steel are permeable to tritium. So sleeping next to your glass jar of 100% tritium could well result in your death. So when you go to sleep tonight, put the glass jar of tritium inside an appropriate container.

Is that why when handling Nuc Weapons the biggest danger is tritium? Seems it poisons all of your internal organs. If some one told you tritium is safe they lied and if you believed them well I've got a bridge for you.

Stephen, in what imaginary world did you come up with that? Seems you were the one lied to.

The biggest dangers are Americium and Iodine - both emit gamma rays which penetrate everything. Iodine is absorbed into your thyroid so it sticks around longer than Americium and because of that it's able to cause more damage.

Tritium is a product or fission anyway, not of sitting nuclear weapons or material. Also it's a product of fusion (hydrogen) bombs. Since we're not irradiating things like boron - tritium still isn't being produced.

I really wish you unintelligent and uninformed, lazy fear mongers would just cut the power and hide in your basements.

Tritium- the third isotope of Hydrogen, rapidly disperses in the atmosphere, reducing its concentration. It's a low-level Beta emitter, and only really becomes dangerous when heated, when it bonds with atmospheric water molecules and formed what's called Tritiated Water Vapor. The problem with the water vapor is it's hard to exhale it once breathed, it tends to collect in the lungs and cause damage. I used to work with this stuff from time to time when I was in the Navy, and honestly, its not that bad as far as radioactive things go.

@MrGoneX,

The U.S. Navy has had to settle a huge amount of lawsuits because it failed to properly inform contractors correctly about the dangers from radiation, especially those from the LWR powerplants of ships. These small reactors actually have far less safety and shielding than conventional nuclear powerplants. US Navy ships propelled by nuclear power are banned from the ports of a number of countries. They have a strong tendency to leak radiation into the environment and the air re-circulation equipment in ships, especially submarines, has the effect of concentrating contaminants (including tritium) in the air abord the vessels.

Military personnel are pretty much given as little information about radiation dangers as possible. This is in everything from depleted uraniumn used in ammunition to reactors on ships to equipment to search for damage in sealed areas of ships or tanks. The Pentagon figures it is better not to worry the military unduely about radiation since their ability to seek redress is limited anyway. It is easier to just let them be exposed and discharge them.

The depleted uranium in bullets and tank shells is becoming a serious problem because of the numerous redeployments in Iraq and Afghanistan. Big sp[ikes in cancer are being seen and much of it attributed to those spent rounds.

Naw.......

The fishin's real good around the nuke plants, ya get a bigger fish, and they're easier to see 'cause they're all lit up in the water.

Besides, they don't take near as long to cook........

The fishin's real good around the nuke plants

You mean the fission's real good...

Excellent use of humor CPO and Hal.

Jeffrey,

Tritium can kill you, but so can water. Water has killed more people than tritium has. The question is how does tritium kill you and at what levels is it dangerous and how does it enter the body. When you can provide me that information, I'll hold you as credible, but until you can tell me how it kills me, I will disbelieve you as not a credible source. Just saying that something kills you shows that you are just an anti-nuclear shill.

@bohnmann,

Start reading here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tritium

I know about tritium, I'm a chemist. I was pointing out that unlike you, irrational anti nuke people just spout things like "The tritium will kill you" without providing any data to back it up. It would make his case more if he said something like this: "Tritium is deadly at levels of 100ppb." Otherwise he is no better than the blind pro nuke shills that don't know anything other than nuclear is good.

I disagree with you sometimes, but at least you try to make points with a semblance of facts.

Exelon cooling lake - Hideike Lake IL.

Actually DID fish the lake and it legal to do so.

Freind of mine EATS the Fish and has the shakes.....

No Kidding.

We had gators and snakes around the nuclear facility I worked at. It was common practice to look under your car from a distance to make sure there weren't any gaters laying around trying to stay out of the sun.

It was also a normal site to see a gator trucking across the parking lot from the reservoir to the secondary cooling pond where the water was much warmer. Those were fun days working there :)

Precisely. The point is you can't win with radical liberals. They are against anything that contributes to a functioning capitalist economy.

omg--can you not have a normal discussion without bringing radical liberal or mind blowingly stupid conservative into the discussion.

Nothing in this world is black and white. How about we still use nuclear power but we a) upgrade the facilities --there are some amazing new designs. b) shut down any nuclear power that operates on a fresh water source--keep the ones on the ocean.

Amen to the first paragraph, Amen to the first part of the second paragraph, but as to point b, I have been canoeing in the river that this plant uses, and could not tell a difference between the "non-nuclear" part and the "nuclear" part of the river. The only thing that would be an issue is if there were a Chernobyl or Fukushima type event. And then it wouldn't matter if it is on a river or on the ocean. There would be contamination either way.

We can go back to rubbing two sticks together.

@Kallie: Great idea! Let's keep nuclear plants next to the ocean... surely rogue waves won't be bad for that... it's not like a tsunami or anything has damaged a nuclear power plant or cause a large incident...

jnessler...totally unaware that insurance was unavailable for nukers. Well, to tell you the truth, I had never thought about it but after reading this article, just happened to find this little gem. I guess they could never get insurance since everyone would be suing for their children.

http://readersupportednews.org/news-section2/344-208/9671-childhood-leukemia-spikes-near-nuclear-power-plants

Nuclear energy is more trouble than it's worth, And we really don't need it,put the money into fluidized beds or magnetohydrodynamics. And I have read that if we turned 1/4 of Texas into a giant solar farm we could power the USA, there are options.

@jnessler

Do you know what goes into making solar panels? Let me tip you off, Lead, Cadmium, Mercury to name a few [along with the more mundane like silicon and various metals]. Also what about the plastics that go into making the panels?

How about the fact that panels wear down and their efficiency drops meaning that their effective lifespan is limited to approximately 40 years [not that they will stop making power, just make a lot less than they did new].

And do you realize the mass you are talking about?!? 1/4 of Texas? I have no idea where you came up with that figure but you are talking about over 67,000 square miles. That's a larger land mass than the country of England. That is a lot of solar panels to replace every 40 years. Heck lets be optomistic and say 100 years, the plastic and silicon from those panels isn't going anywhere anytime soon.

Don't get me wrong. I'm all for using various forms of power where they are effective and efficient, but it is asinine to say that one particular thing is the answer to all our problems. Renewables sound nice until you do the math, and then you have to account for what happens when conditions are not ideal. Sorry you can't cook dinner until the storm front move from over Texas... And no midnight snacks since its dark.

1/4 Texas? why? why not use the wasted roof space, so YOU get the benefits and not some " Farm"?

jnessler... there were solar projects out in West Texas for several. They failed to prove to be viable.

Yes lets turn Texas into a solar farm. Just remember at sundown the house lights will go out. Yes, I do know that you can store it in batteries. What kind of eviromentally materials are they made of???? More lead, cadmium ect...

Most nuclear power plants need only run 3-6 months a year to recoup a profit. Problem is half our nuclear power plants were built prior to 1980.

People freak out when something bad goes wrong, but they forget that hundreds of reactors have been chugging along for decades, safely producing untold gigawatts of energy with very little carbon emissions to the atmosphere.

Expensive to build? Yes. But extremely efficient once they are running.

Spent fuel? Other countries recycle it. We have technology to seperate the most long-lived waste and turn it back into energy. Why not develop it?

Fukushima was an old reactor that was designed at a time when no one imagined a 14 m high tsunami could happen. The new designs being certified today could have weathered that kind of accident.

Nuclear has risks, yes. But the benefits outweigh those risks by a landslide. Build more of these please! You can put one in my back yard any day.

jnessler, I don't have time for a long reply here as I am on my way to work. However, I have to take you to task on a few of your statements. First, name one U.S. nuclear power plant that didn't pay for itself within the first 10 years of operation. Before you try to find one, let me tell you, there aren't any!

I don't know about no insurance company being willing to cover a nuclear power plant because most utilities are self insured, even the ones that don't have nuclear plants.

I more but I have to go. Have a nice day!

BigPaul... a lot more than 1/2 were. Although some are in progress of being built, there haven't been any completed since 1986.

Sea Shadow - you bring up a good point about panels but that is production waste and many other electronic devices we use produce the same waste. The good thing is that can be controlled, unlike the spewing of gases into the atmosphere from burning fossil fuels, especially if we support the industry more in the USA and take it back from China. Note: I support nuclear as evident from my post above just not the outdated use of lightwater reactors, we need to use fast reactors.

Solar is viable on large scale and getting better everyday. Not yet there finacially for the average home owner but it is getting better. Yes, solar will not be a base power source, probably not ever regardless of how good the batteries get (which are getting better but I don't see that as practical unless some amazing breakthru is made). However, it can be a great way to offset some of the power demand during the day and help balance the grid. It also helps to bring some energy independence for users and better control their costs. In my opinion solar can be a great additive to any base power and should continue to get the attention it is, as should newer nuclear reactor designs and options. Also as eagle pointed out, lot of open roof space out there.

It is really annoying to get hit by a grammar/spelling nazi but humor me for a second... D:

Fukoshima

Fukushima

Because that u really took away from the message. geesh. If I can let it go so can you.

I like Decemeber. Escpecially because of Chirstmas.

I LIKE... LAMP!

I like...cookies.

Yes well said, the steel in then as well as the concrete starts to fall apart, they originally only had a 20 year operational license,and most are older then 40 years, but what the Terrible thing is what they going to do with all the radiated materials, store them for 250.000 years? where?

Maybe that's why Gringrich wants to colonize the moon?

Maybe we could store it in Washington DC. No intelligent life forms there to endanger.

Ugh, Gen III+ has already been approved. Westinghouse's AP1000. It's a proven technology. France, Germany, Russia, all their plants have been progressing with technology. American nuke plants are stagnant because of NIMBY groups.

Gingrich wants to colonize the moon because that's the only place in this universe where the population doesn't think he's a lying, lobbying, buffoon.

Pardon me, but the half-life of tritium is 12.3 years, and some nuclear byproducts can last 50 to 100 years.

Well, you certainly have a point, Sea Shadow but if you look again, you will see that the article was actually clipped from here:

http://www.counterpunch.org/2012/01/26/childhood-leukemia-spikes-near-nuclear-power-plants/

Sorry. Should have linked the actual site. There were other sites also carrying this story. Have a good day.

@jnessler

Half life and biological half life are two very different things, the biological half life is how long it takes for a substance to loose 1/2 of its effect in a system. Check it out, its a term used in medicine, and pharmaceuticals in addition to other places.

It is also the figure you should be more worried about since that is what gives you a measure of how dangerous it is. Even more so since tritium is not hazardous externally.

@chefaz-1319563

Thanks for the other link, but that still doesn't classify as a reputable source. My point still stands as it is just an editor for a watchdog group. I did skim over the article and noted that it makes mention of supposed research, but with out a direct reference to the actual paper I can not verify the veracity of such claims.

I live in a world of research and credibility, and those things do not qualify as credible as they lack sources. Provide actual studies that I can reference and I will happily take note.

Upon closer inspection of the site provided by chefaz-1319563 I was able to find a link to the mentioned research paper, but I am still tracking down the original copy via my university's database system as the linked one does not provide a digital marker to reference it. Regardless, the article does seem like it will make for a good read.

Blast, I was almost done with my edit when the timer expired. At any rate, I did find the original paper. I am going to go to bed but I will leave the DOI here for anyone else who wants to read it.

DOI:

10.1080/028418602317314019

By way of mention, I still don't recognize those other 2 sites you linked to as reputable. However, I do acknowledge this paper as scholarly and look forward to reading it tomorrow.

EDIT: Somehow my original post didn't contain this link ACCREDITED EDUCATIONAL INSTITUTION

You are correct.

You don't know much about thorium reactors, do you?

Th-232 (all thorium) is exposed to neutrons, undergoes the chain:

Th-232 + n -> Th-233 -> Pa-233 - beta -> U-233 - beta

You still make fissile material. You can't just "shut off" a thorium reactor once you've started it up. Thorium is a breeder material, generally mixed with 1-2% Pu, and after a few cycles, the uranium enrichment is sufficiently high for critical mass to occur, generally for use in HWRs.

There is no proof thorium is "safer" than any other material, unless you're thinking of the sub-critical spallation reactor, which is still far from the engineering stage.

Also, U-233 is just as bad for proliferation as U-235.

Thorium also requires a driver, ie. U-233, U-238, Pu-239. Plus factor in the cost involved in making it a fissile fuel make it impractical.

@A John Twitty: U-238 cannot be a driver -- it is fertile, not fissile. In a standard LWR, only 2-3% of the fuel is enriched to U-235. The rest is mostly U-238, which can pick up a neutron, resulting in Pu-239. One of the ideas driving Thorium reactor technology is that it's a good way to destroy Pu-239, reducing proliferation concerns from all that Pu that is out there sitting around.

Actually, you may want to re-read what Floridayguy posted. I think you misunderstood what he said with regards to the PH scale. He was complaining about uniformed people while providing an anecdote of an environmentalist he considered uninformed.

My apologies, I stand corrected.

@A John Twitty: Uhhh... no. Higher numbers are more alkaline, lower numbers more acidic. pH = -log[H+]

Just an FYI.

Thanks Matt, I was wondering if I hadn't swapped those around.

You know the old saying 50-50-90

How could they have told the public in advance that something was going to fail in the future???

Chicken Little... "The Sky Is Falling!"

So you'd prefer for every incident, regardless of how minor, for them to get on the EBS and scream, "Flee! Flee! Run for your lives!"?

Why would they have "tube cracks" in the steam generator? They're not necessarily charging make up water, either. They had an automatic protective action that shut down the reactor after some unspecified malfunction. They're bleeding steam from the secondary plant to remove decay heat from the primary plant while they correct the problem. I'm sure they're cooling the plant down some but it would be unusual if they cooled it down more than 80 degrees or so because they'll want to return the plant to normal operation as quickly as possible. Therefore, they probably haven't added any makeup water. Even if they did add makeup water, it would be minimal compared to the amount of water already in the primary plant so it doesn't provide any cooling--therefore no thermal stresses to crack the steam generator tubes. This whole situation is fairly routine stuff. They go through this exact same sequence of events everytime they shut the plant down for maintenance. The only difference is that humans shut down the reactor for maintenance events rather than the PLC. The only reason the NRC has declared this an "unusual event" is because of the automatic shutdown. It's not really the preferred method but it's still very safe and effective.

Your comment only proves you dont know anything about nuclear power production.

So you do not mind all the spent fuel rods wasting away in the deserts? Its not very practical and its not as cheap as everyone was told when nuclear was sold to US. I personally think natural gas is a better alternative. We have plenty of that and its very clean to burn. Does not have all the issues as nuclear.

cbo,

You might want to throw away just about everything you own then.

http://www.ranken-energy.com/Products%20from%20Petroleum.htm

http://www.pbs.org/independentlens/classroom/wwo/petroleum.pdf

cbo,

You might want to throw away just about everything you own then.

http://www.ranken-energy.com/Products%20from%20Petroleum.htm

http://www.pbs.org/independentlens/classroom/wwo/petroleum.pdf