MOX fuel - details that matter....
Plutonium threat at Japan reactor, expert warns
Masashi Goto - worked for Toshiba as a reactor researcher and designer
"more volatile and toxic"
"MOX also has a lower melting point than the other fuels"
http://news.cnet.com/8301-11386_3-20042852-76.html
AND.....
MOX Battle: Mixed Oxide Nuclear Fuel Raises Safety Questions
One of the troubled Fukushima Daiichi reactors contains a blend of uranium and plutonium fuel that may soon find use in the U.S. Does it pose more risks than standard uranium fuel?
By John Matson | March 25, 2011
.....
Robert Alvarez, a senior scholar at the Institute for Policy Studies, a Washington, D.C., think tank, says that MOX is not the best way to irreversibly render plutonium unsuitable for weapons use. "If you really want to pursue the path of irreversibility, there are probably cheaper, easier ways to do it," he says. One way would be to blend the plutonium down to a low concentration and put it in the DoE's Waste Isolation Pilot Plant in the New Mexico desert. With the price tag attached to the MFFF, "it's certainly not something you'd think you could make money off," Alvarez says. "I kind of see it as a nuclear equivalent to a bridge to nowhere." ..."the future of MOX fuel remains somewhat uncertain in the U.S. "The DoE still can't find a utility that's willing to take this stuff..."
Edwin Lyman, senior scientist for global security at the Union of Concerned Scientists in Washington, D.C., argues that MOX is more likely to cause nuclear accidents than ordinary uranium fuel and is liable to release more harmful material in the event of an accident. "Plutonium has different properties than uranium 235 that generally tend to degrade some of the safety systems in nuclear plants," Lyman says. For instance, because weapons-grade plutonium fissions more readily than uranium 235, reactors may need more robust control rods—neutron absorbers that shut down the nuclear chain reaction when inserted into a reactor's core. "You never get quite as much margin even after doing all that as you do with uranium," Lyman says.
Lyman authored a study in 2001 in Science & Global Security showing that radioactive leakage from a meltdown with MOX fuel, which in addition to plutonium has higher levels of radioactive isotopes such as americium 241 and curium 242, would be deadlier than a low-enriched uranium meltdown. "Because plutonium is so much more radiotoxic than many of the other radionuclides, even if it's released in relatively small concentrations it can have an impact on the effects," Lyman says. He adds that it is not possible at the moment to identify how much the MOX fuel in Fukushima reactor No. 3 has contributed to the radioactive plumes emanating from the plant.
Lyman questions whether even TVA will be a willing taker. "I don't see why any utility, even a government-owned one like TVA, would want to dabble with this stuff," he says.
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=mox-fuel-nuclear
AND....
MOX fuel rods used in Japanese Nuclear Reactor present multiple dangers
Plutonium is at its most dangerous when it is inhaled and gets into the lungs. The effect on the human body is to vastly increase the chance of developing fatal cancers.
http://www.dcbureau.org/20110315782/natural-resources-news-service/mox-f...
AND....
What is MOX?
http://www.nirs.org/factsheets/basicmoxinfo.htm
AND ....
MOX plutonium fuel used in Fukushima's Unit 3 reactor two million times more deadly than enriched uranium
http://www.naturalnews.com/031736_plutonium_enriched_uranium.html
AND......
Current technology DOES NOT eliminate ....Plutonium from reprocessed fuel is STILL REMAINS in the spent fuel....
Mixed Oxide (MOX) Fuel
....However, at present the general policy is not to reprocess used MOX fuel, but to store it and await the advent of fuel cycle developments related to Generation IV fast neutron reactor designs.
http://www.world-nuclear.org/info/inf29.html
AND....
go google MOX fuel YOURSELF...
(Note: the ebay link does not work.... (yet))
Fukushima mox inventory
http://cnic.jp/english/newsletter/nit138/nit138articles/nw138.html#fukus...
Fukushima 1-3 Begins Operating with MOX Fuel
On September 18, Tokyo Electric Power Company (TEPCO) started up its Fukushima I-3 Nuclear Power Plant (BWR, 784MW) using MOX fuel. It loaded MOX fuel into the reactor on August 21 and plans to begin generating electricity on the 23rd.
Over 10 years had passed since this fuel was fabricated. It was fabricated between 1997 and 1998 and arrived at the nuclear power station in 1999, but it was never loaded. Falsification of fuel quality control data for MOX fuel for Kansai Electric Power Company's Takahama-3&4 nuclear power plants was discovered and troubles and cover-ups were discovered at TEPCO nuclear power plants. In response, the prefectural government revoked its agreement with TEPCO. On January 20 2010, TEPCO applied again for permission to use MOX fuel and on August 6 the governor gave his consent.
========
http://cnic.jp/english/newsletter/nit135/nit135articles/nw135.html
Fukushima Governor indicates conditional approval for pluthermal
On January 20, Tokyo Electric Power Company (TEPCO) reapplied to the Fukushima Prefectural government for prior consent for its pluthermal plan for the Fukushima I-3 (BWR, 784MW) reactor. Governor Yuhei Sato responded at the Prefectural Assembly's February 16 session that his consent was conditional on an assurance of seismic safety, aging countermeasures, and integrity of the MOX fuel. This is the first indication that pluthermal might finally be implemented since Fukushima Prefecture withdrew its consent following revelations in August 2002 of cover-ups of major problems at TEPCO's nuclear power plants.
In September 1999, 32 MOX fuel assemblies arrived at the Fukushima I-3 plant and have been stored there ever since. Over ten years later, TEPCO began inspections of the integrity of the fuel on February 25 this year. However, these are only visual inspections.
=========
Can Any one tell me where those assemblies where stored my understanding is they were stored in common spent fuel pools any data on this is appriciated Ty ..tdm
Take a breather
Take a breather
The USA should ‘take a breather’ on commercial nuclear power generation facilities. We have a large overhead of defectively designed, corroded, aging nuclear reactors; which can realistically only be described as dangerous. Leaks and accidents are far too commonplace. The danger level to the public is rapidly increasing. The industry, as presently composed, resists all forms of safety enhancement.
Known defective containment designs (GE Mark-1&2) continue in operation
Leak and fallout magnitudes and health consequences are distorted and delayed
Rapid Evacuation is not practical
We have no anti-radiation drug stockpile or radiation treatment hospital capabilities
Corroded and Aged reactors are recertified
MOX fueling and power uprating are careening forward
Nuclear power generation industry is less than candid on risks, benefits and alternatives
Specifics & References
Some specifics and references are provided.
How long can nuclear reactors last? US, industry extend spans
'What they're saying is really a fabrication,' retired reactor designer says
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/43556350/ns/us_news-environment/t/how-long-c...
Safety rules loosened for aging nuclear reactors
'We can't compromise on safety. I think the vulnerability is on these older plants,' says retired safety designer
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/43455859/ns/us_news-environment/t/safety-rul...
Radioactive tritium leaks found at 48 US nuke sites
'You got pipes that have been buried underground for 30 or 40 years, and they've never been inspected,' whistleblower says
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/43475479/ns/us_news-environment/t/radioactiv...
US nuclear evacuation plans haven't kept up with population
17 million would have to move in 48 hours if 50-mile zone went up around NY plant
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/43529122/ns/us_news-environment/t/us-nuclear...
http://www.nrc.gov/reactors/operating/licensing/renewal/regulations.html
http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/doc-collections/fact-sheets/fs-reactor-lic...
http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/doc-collections/nuregs/staff/sr1705/
Cover-Ups & Lies
The Japanese government, has withheld or controlled information about:
health risks of radiation
expected dispersion of radioactive materials ---- and
their actual contamination measurements
http://www.japanfocus.org/-Say_Peace-Project/3549
http://japanfocus.org/data/APJ_JF_ProtectingChildrenFromRadiationSayPeac...
Protecting Children Against Radiation: Citizens Take Radiation Protection into Their Own Hands
Say-Peace - Introduction by Norimatsu Satoko
Robert Alvarez, a former senior policy adviser at the U.S. Department of Energy said in a Democracy Now! interview on June 10, ―
The nuclear industry, particularly in the United States, and elsewhere—Russia and Japan—has had a very long history of withholding information and misleading the public about the hazards of their activities.
Being no exception to Alvarez‘s generalization, the Japanese government, since the multiple meltdowns and explosions at the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear power plant in mid-March, has withheld or controlled information about health risks of radiation, expected dispersion of radioactive materials, and their actual contamination measurements in areas surrounding Fukushima Daiichi and beyond. Instead of providing candid information to the public, the government started campaigns in the opposite direction – to lull the public into worrying less about radiation and its health risks.
Pu reduces control
Pu reduces control rod worth
http://144.206.159.178/FT/629/562121/12162094.pdf
A. Vasile et al. / Journal of Nuclear Materials 319 (2003) 173–179
• The presence of Pu hardens the neutron spectrum,
which reduces the worth of control rods and soluble
boron. The control problem may be alleviated by
limiting the Pu content, by redesigning the control
rod assemblies, or by improved neutron moderation.
In 900 MW electrical french PWRs, the boron concentration
of the refuelling storage tank was increased
from 2000 to 2400 ppm and the boron
concentration of the boric acid makeup tanks were
increased from 7000 to 7500 ppm. Four rod cluster
control assemblies were added without significant
economic penalties so that cores loaded up to 30%
in MOX could be accepted. For the EPR, these control
system improvements were included from the design
phase, allowing the loading of 100% slightly
moderated MOX assemblies.
• The safety margins change. Accidental voiding of
coolant system also hardens the neutron spectrum.
At high neutron energies all the isotopes of Pu can
undergo fission, which increases the reactivity. From
a study of six widely different mixes of Pu isotopes, it
was found that the limiting total plutonium fractions
(above which the void coefficient becomes positive)
vary from 12.5% to 15% [1]. 239Pu also has a much
lower delayed neutron fraction (0.0021) than 235U
(0.0065), which makes kinetics control more challenging
for cores with high Pu content.
Comparison to aeronautical engineers..
Aeronautical engineers don't have to put up with the same specious arguments that nuclear engineers do.
Consider a debate about airliners flying at 1000 ft vs airliners flying at 40,000 feet.
The air at 40,000 feet is less dense than the air at 1,000 feet. Therefore, for a given airspeed and given deflection of the control surfaces, there is a greater force generated by the denser air at 1,000 feet than at 40,000 feet. Therefore, the airliner has more control at 1,000 feet than 40,000 feet because it can generate greater control forces.
For a given airspeed, the denser air at 1,000 feet means that the engines can develop more power because they have denser air and can add more fuel to that denser air to develop more power.
Why, oh why do we allow airliners to fly at 40,000 feet vs 1,000 feet? There are so many advantages at 1,000 feet over 40,000 feet. It must be due to greedy airlines....
Do people realize how manifestly STUPID the above arguments would sound to an aeronautical engineer? ( or anyone for that matter ). Although the arguments concerning air density are true; airliners are designed to cope with those issues.
To nuclear physicists, nuclear engineers, and other scientists; the arguments that MOX is detrimental to the operation of reactors sounds just as specious. Reactors are designed to use MOX, and they essentially make their own MOX, in situ, even if one fuels the reactor with only uranium.
Unfair Comparisons
Unfair Comparisons
Perhaps IF the FLYBOYS started our relationship with a total CROCK:
The Wright brothers and the industry could have PROMISED no problems, crashes or deaths.
THEN we would now consider that field to be a pack of frigging LIARS.
However, they have generally been candid with the risks & rewards.
Thus we make our (informed) choices and take our chances.
Unfair Comparisons II
Unfair Comparisons - The Sequel
We have a remarkable capacity to accept risks, as evidenced by our universal rejection of the 55 MPH speed limit. We do not suffer fools and liars lightly. Thus the nuclear power generation industry is widely disbelieved.
The empty weight of a Boeing 747 aircraft is approximately 128,730 pounds. The flyboys don’t tell us that a midair collision of two fully loaded jumbo jets only scatters 3 ounces of aluminum; and that nobody died. If they told us such ‘fairy-tales’, we would brand them laughable liars. If they told us the airfare would be “too cheap to meter” and then charged us a king’s ransom for tickets; they would not be considered credible.
The Misinformation continues....
If they told us the airfare would be “too cheap to meter” and then charged us a king’s ransom for tickets; they would not be considered credible.
==========================
Here we have another repetition of the old lie from the anti-nukes that the "nuclear industry" said that there would be electricity that was "too cheap to meter". It's a lie because this was not said by the "nuclear industry" and it was not said about the nuclear power plants that we have today.
That particular quote comes to us from then AEC Commissioner Lewis Strauss:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lewis_Strauss
In 1954, Strauss predicted that atomic power would make electricity "too cheap to meter."[3] He was referring to Project Sherwood, a secret program to develop power from hydrogen fusion, not uranium fission reactors as is commonly believed
Got any more LIES and MISINFORMATION that I can disabuse you of?
"the anti-nukes.." "the
"the anti-nukes.." "the anti-nukes.." "the anti-nukes.." "the anti-nukes.."
"the anti-nukes.." "the anti-nukes.." "the anti-nukes.." "the anti-nukes.."
"the anti-nukes.." "the anti-nukes.." "the anti-nukes.." "the anti-nukes.."
"the anti-nukes.." "the anti-nukes.." "the anti-nukes.." "the anti-nukes.."
"the anti-nukes.." "the anti-nukes.." "the anti-nukes.." "the anti-nukes.."
"the anti-nukes.." "the anti-nukes.." "the anti-nukes.." "the anti-nukes.."
LOL!!!! Can always count on you, our industry shill friend, to sing that one note song!
Evidently the truth hurts...
Evidently the truth hurts..
Clearly the poster 2 above was correct. The attribution of the "too cheap to meter" claim to the nuclear industry as pertaining to present fission power plants is clearly a lie. The poster 2 above demonstrated that.
This mindless bleating by someone upset when the anti-nukes got caught in a lie is what is amusing to me. Look at the response; it's just a banal repeating of the word "anti-nuke" over and over again which demonstrates little in intelligence or rational thought.
I believe the posters here have really shown up the anti-nukes for the self-righteous ignorant buffoons that they are.
"I believe the posters here
"I believe the posters here have really shown up the anti-nukes "
Ya gotta admit, this guy is a riot! Our very own forum Sybill! He posts to his own comments, and pretends it's multiple people.
Oh, and hey genius... the
Oh, and hey genius... the "mindless bleating" is mocking YOU ... not too bright, are ya, if that has to be explained. You're the one that uses "anti-nuke" over and over and over and over until we all want to scream "uncle". Now do you get it?
"self-righteous ignorant
"self-righteous ignorant buffoons"
There you go, projecting again. You are truly a Psych 101 case study. Fascinating actually.
You may have a few people here fooled, but I think most of us have your number.
Legends
Evidently,
You are a legend in your own mind.
The electricity is virtually free.
The Politician Bribes are gonna cost yah though.
Truth
The declaration of LIES and MISINFORMATION is the now the widely understood byline of the commercial nuclear power industry. Fukushima has put this byline sprouting up in neon lights in more and more places. It is not just a coat of paint, it is more like grotesque neon yellowing fat in a cheap steak - it runs through to the middle and in fact now defines it, stem to stern.
The financial industry, while no vegetarian, knows toxic $h1^ when it sees it.
The much of the rest of the world is cottoning on.
Soon we will say bye bye and good riddance.
It has been a malformed baby Huey for fifty years clutching at the public breast, biting off pieces while raping the public with one hand and the other deep in the public purse.
We are no longer modern Athens. The bad raping by the banksters now have us on a course toward Sparta.
I say we toss this infant, the abomination, that refuses to grow up off the cliff. Lets first prime the pump and bring in carrion eaters by first throwing off the profiteering attendants and itinerant glow boy entourage so we can can completely cleanse with no parasites left in the environment.
Anyone who continues to work with or for the nukers is an idiot, a fool, a tool.
have a nice day
Which cliff, Greek or Roman?
Which cliff, Greek or Roman?
According to Greek Legend, if the Spartans judged the crying baby to be unworthy of carrying a Spartan shield, it would be taken immediately to a nearby cliff off Mt. Taygetos and thrown over the edge.
According to the 12 Tables of Rome, thieves, perjurers and traitors were tossed to their death off the cliff of the Capitoline Hill known as the Tarpeian Rock.
Thus, either cliff would appear to be suitable for your intended purpose.
Fine work
Highly enjoyable
Fine work, sir (or madam)...
Long on vitriol...short(devoid) of facts
I found the rant long on vitriol and short (devoid) of facts.
CROCK PROMISED by LIARS
That about covers it.. Sad when exciting technology is used to create military power and profit above all, oh and screw the herd, ahem, populace.
How is the above in anyway responsive????
How is the above responsive to the previous post, in any way shape or form???
The aeronautic vs. nuclear comparison was based on technical comparisons, and from the above poster we get the unsubstantiated claims of lies.
The airline industry never promised "no problems", "no crashes", and "no deaths"; and has certainly not violated those claims. There most certainly have been problems, crashes, and deaths in the US commercial aviation industry.
The US commercial nuclear power industry also never promised "no problems", "no accidents", or "no deaths". It is frequently cited by anti-nukes that this claim was made; but I defy them to prove it. The certifiable liar anti-nukes have never substantiated any of their claims that the nuclear industry ever claimed "no problems".
For all the claims that the nuclear industry is full of liars; I find that it is the case that the anti-nuclear industry is the pack of liars. They either fabricate claims, or their claims of lies are based on their own pitiful misunderstandings.
However, in the final analysis regardless of what was claimed; the nuclear industry in the USA has not killed or harmed a single member of the US public. That is a claim that the US airline industry can not make.
The only serious commercial reactor accident in the USA was Three Mile Island. Members of the public attempted to sue the plant's owner Metropolitan Edison for health effects. Their lawsuit was DISMISSED by the chief federal district court judge without trial for lack of evidence. One can read her ruling here courtesy of PBS Frontline:
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/reaction/readings/tmi.html
the discrepancies between Defendants, proffer of evidence and that put forth by Plaintiffs in both volume and complexity are vast. The paucity of proof alleged in support of Plaintiffs, case is manifest. The court has searched the record for any and all evidence which construed in a light most favorable to Plaintiffs creates a genuine issue of material fact warranting submission of their claims to a jury. This effort has been in vain.
Please, no federal judge quotes!
Please, no federal judge quotes!
There are approximately 1200 sitting federal judges, who are in the main, remarkable for their susceptability to 'undue influence'. They have shown, in the matter of presidential ballot qualification, NO respect for the constitutional requirements of 35 years of age, natural born citizen and 14 years a resident.
No controlling legal authority has ever deigned to hold an evidentiary hearing on the Obama birth qualification question. No 'human' citizen, candidate, elector or soldier has 'standing'. 'We the People' have been supplanted by foreign owned corporations, as citizens.
Federal court decisions are not probative and often not even evidentiary.
Please, no federal judge quotes!
Then you haven't read the judge's decision...
Federal court decisions are not probative and often not even evidentiary.
========================
Then you haven't read the judge's decision. Judge Rambo outlines in her decision the decade and a half of testimony from expert witnesses and scientists in regard to the Three Mile Island accident.
However, in the final analysis, as Judge Rambo stated; the Plaintiffs, who were the neighbors of TMI that were suing the plant's owner Metropolitan Edison, didn't have much except unsupported allegations.
Metropolitan Edison had on its side the determinations of the scientists that studied the accident and compiled their findings for the US Government in a study called the "Rogovin Report" that showed there were no threats to the health of the populace. The containment building at TMI worked 100%, and the only releases were some intentional releases ( to vent a portion of the containment to allow access to personnel ) and those releases were within the amounts that the plant was licensed to release anyway.
In Judge Rambo's Court, the scientists ruled the day. Judge Rambo refers to the lack of evidence by the Plaintiffs as "...the paucity of proof.." which is why she DISMISSED the lawsuit, a dismissal that was upheld on appeal.
Yes, I perused it
Yes, as a matter of fact, I did review the 'toilet paper' ruling, quite some time ago.
Fairly typical as 'undue influence' decisions go, in my personal opinion.
Certainly NOT worth the effort; and NOT recommended.
Pure HorseSh-t as is commonly the case for the mostly corrupt federal judiciary.
Not really of any value even as toilet paper.
I do pity the poor citizens of Harrisburg, Lancaster, Hershey ...
Would rather see them, than be them.
No justice - No peace
No evidence of "undue influence"
Yes, as a matter of fact, I did review the 'toilet paper' ruling, quite some time ago.
Fairly typical as 'undue influence' decisions go, in my personal opinion.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
There was no evidence of "undue influence". You may have read the decision, but you evidently didn't read the supporting testimony like the Rogovin Report which was prepared by an independent scientific team.
The Rogovin Report ( “Three Mile Island; A Report to the Commissioners and to the Public,” by Mitchell Rogovin and George T. Frampton, NUREG/CR-1250, Vols. I‑II, 1980 ) found:
http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/doc-collections/fact-sheets/3mile-isle.html
Estimates are that the average dose to about 2 million people in the area was only about 1 millirem. To put this into context, exposure from a chest x‑ray is about 6 millirem. Compared to the natural radioactive background dose of about 100‑125 millirem per year for the area, the collective dose to the community from the accident was very small.
The scientific studies / reports said the dose was very small, being about 1 millirem. A member of the public would get many times this living in Denver. Even in Pennsylvania the yearly dose was over 100X times this dose. This dose is too low to result in actionable health effects.
The Plaintiffs hypothesized that their doses were higher. They claimed that there was a "plume" that weaved about and avoided the radiation monitoring stations that are installed in communities near nuclear power plants.
However, in a Court of Law, the burden of proof is on the Plaintiff. The TMI Plaintiffs only had a vacuous claim of a plume, and no proof.
Given the scientific evidence from independent scientists, as well as a claim with zero proof or backing evidence; the judge was pretty much forced to reach the decision she did, and she was upheld on appeal.
There is little argument what
There is little argument what the Judge and/or report SAID.
There is simply NO significance attached to the bogus 'findings' of the court or the report.
Whitewashes are simply CYA tactics. There is little motivation to consider them to represent evidence, fact, science and/or truth.
TMI, Chernobyl and Fukushima Daichi nuclear emissions are immense, CYA tactics notwithstanding.
Your argument doesn't make sense
Your argument doesn't make sense. The Three Mile Island accident was studied by a commission headed by Professor Kemeny:
http://www.pddoc.com/tmi2/kemeny/commission_and_its_staff.htm
Professor Kemeny was a Professor at Dartmouth. Also on the Commission was Bruce Babbitt, then Governor of Arizona, Professor Carolyn Lewis of the Columbia School of Journalism, and the now late Professor Thomas Pigford, Professor of Nuclear Engineering here at University of California at Berkeley.
The claim is made that this was just "CYA". What did the people above have to cover for? They didn't design, build or operate the Three Mile Island power plant. We have eminent University Professors and even a Governor. They were certainly not in a contributory role with regard to the Three Mile Island accident. So why would they need to "cover up".
No - your statements are a result of a closed mind that can't accept the truth as revealed by unbiased academics and leaders.
During the accident at Three Mile Island, the reactor's containment building worked 100% at containing all radioactive material. However, at one point, personnel access to a portion of the building was desired, and a small portion of the containment building was vented to the environment, thus resulting in the total releases from the TMI accident.
As detailed in the Rogovin Report, and quoted by Judge Rambo in her decision:
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/reaction/readings/tmi.html
According to the Rogovin Report, "approximately 2.5 million curies of radioactive noble gases and-15 curies of radioiodines were released...
The noble gases like Xenon and Krypton are inert. The human body can not take up these gases because they just plain do not take part in chemical reactions. If you breathe some in, you will just breathe them out, and your exposure is limited to a very short period.
Radioactive Iodine, I-131; can be taken in by the body, and can result in a radiation exposure potential. However, how much is 15 Curies of I-131?
For that, one can use Wolfram Alpha:
http://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=mass+of+15+Curies+of+Iodine-131
The answer is 0.121 mg. So the biologically active component of the radioactive materials released by the Three Mile Island accident consisted of a mass that was about 1/8-th of a milligram.
The anti-nukes just can't accept the truth that the radioactive releases from the Three Miles Island accident were so trivially small. Over three decades later, when we now know that there was no increase in cancer for the nearby population:
http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-204_162-527826.html
we have anti-nuclear propagandists still lying to the public and proclaiming that the releases from TMI were "immense".
That's My Story
CW Tune
That's My Story and I'm Stickin to It
The Nuclear Power Generation Industry as it is presently composed ...
Will continue to STICK with this story of miniscule radionuclide releases
Much of the public in Japan, Germany & the USA are accustomed to this fiction
Perhaps in a few DECADES, the future industry players will be more forthcoming
There is no hurry
Several decades from now, perhaps we shall take another look at the matter ...
Scientists "whitewashed"?
There is little argument what the Judge and/or report SAID.
There is simply NO significance attached to the bogus 'findings' of the court or the report.
==============================
The Three Mile Island accident was studied by several scientific panels. One was headed by Rogovin, which culminated in the "Rogovin Report".
Another commission was headed by Professor Kemeny, and the "Kemeny Commision" also investigated the Three Mile Island accident, its causes and consequences.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Three_Mile_Island_accident
The Kemeny Commission Report concluded that "there will either be no case of cancer or the number of cases will be so small that it will never be possible to detect them. The same conclusion applies to the other possible health effects"
So eminent scientists studied this accident, and they all just "white washed" the consequences or their conclusions are "bogus", say the anti-nukes.
How DARE you!! Have you no SHAME?
We have many, many GOOD, HONEST, TRUTHFUL scientists in this country. These eminent individuals were called up to do a service to their nation, and apply their scientific talents to answer the questions that naturally arise.
The above post shows how MANIFESTLY DELUSIONAL the anti-nuclear community is. They are REAL SICK PUPPIES!
Just because they don't like the results that good, honest, eminent scientists discover, the anti-nukes choose to SLANDER them and say that they are just "white washing".
If there is any reason to outright ignore the anti-nukes, here it is. The anti-nukes are so damn self-righteous that they believe they have a monopoly on truth, and if someone, regardless of their scientific stature, disagrees with the anti-nuke; then the eminent scientist must be lying and white-washing.
The anti-nukes want nothing less than totalitarianism by the stupid and ignorant.
BRAWM attacked
Even BRAWM has been attacked by the anti-nukes. BRAWM members concluded as a result of their analysis that the release of Cesium-137 as a result of the Fukushima accident was about 5 kilograms. This was corroborated by other scientists.
However, when BRAWM member Mark stated that the amount of Cesium-137 released at Fukushima was 5 kg in a post titled "Some context" in this thread:
http://www.nuc.berkeley.edu/node/5774
he was promptly attacked by another forum follower who claimed his calculations were "not plausible". This forum follower was relying "on his own eyes", although I know of no human that has eyes calibrated to measure radiation release.
BRAWM's effort to explain the consequences of the Fukushima accident in terms that the average citizen would be familiar with was also attacked here:
http://www.nuc.berkeley.edu/node/4926?page=2
BRAWM members have explained their methodology and their motives in providing us with their measurements, their analysis, and this forum. Yet, they are subject to attacks by anti-nukes claiming that they are shills for the nuclear power industry.
It's the anti-nukes that are the shills. They want to exaggerate the effects of the Fukushima accident which just wasn't bad enough for them. Therefore, the anti-nukes can't handle the truth, and attack those like BRAWM that are performing a public service, honestly and honorably.
OF COURSE WE THINK YOU ARE A
OF COURSE WE THINK YOU ARE A SHILL!! Seriously, have you ever read your posts? You sure spend a heck of a lot of time stalking people in just about every thread. You even resurrect old threads to hurl your nastiness around.
You don't debate, you insult. You have a real nasty streak, buddy, and it undermines your credibility. You'd probably win more arguments if you weren't so dysfunctional.
But you're not interested in debate or winning arguments. You annoy, harass and project like a madman.
You are an industry man, hiding behind "anonymous" or you have psych issues.
Regarding BRAWM, very very very few people on this forum have "attacked" them and you know it.
You project that "liar" moniker, because you own it.
I've been lurking here for some time
I been lurking here for some time and I think it's the anti-nuclear community that comes up short on valid arguments. It's the opposition to nuclear power that is always claiming people are industry shills, even when they have valid points with the scientific citations to back them up. I think the above poster is just sore because his side is clearly losing the argument.
SHUT UP! JUST SHUT UP!!!!!!!
SHUT UP! JUST SHUT UP!!!!!!! AND GO AWAY!!!!!!!!!!
I can't BELIEVE all you so called "SCIENTISTS" are crying about how BAD your being treated. YOU HOLD ALL THE CARDS. You restrick the knowledge by limiting access through universities (read MILITARY ..INDUSTRIAL COMPLEX DEATH CULT INDOCTRINATION FACULITIES) and supposed "RESEARCH INSTITUTIONS (where you and your fellow conspirators plot to benefit financially from RAPING THE WORLD and CONDEMMING HUMANITY TO A SLOW DEATH from all the POISONS you unleash UPON it. And you talk about US having no shame!!!!!!!
You conduct these so-called "STUDIES" and "EXPERIMENTS" in the DARK without uncompromised, disintresested observers present, IN SECRECY, then hold onto the so-called "RESULTS" and only release them UNDER PRESSURE IF AT ALL. And THEN your data is incomplete, biased and untrustworthy, because as we ALL know, you SLANT EVERYTHING YOU SAY to suit your agenda and that of your pro-nuke capitalist warmongering whoremasters!!!!!!!!!! Say it isn't so!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Then when someone works digiliently to do their OWN research and put together information from various sources, get contacts INSIDE your secretive organizations, get access to classified documents and get a clear PICTURE of your activities and motives, and tries to be a good citizen and journalist and RING A WARNING BELL, you ATTACK him and unleash dogs like Rick Cromack whose only purpose is to confuse and get your enemies against each other. You sew distrust and get people questioning themselves and each other. And then you lecture about the SO-CALLED scientific "results" you fixed and fabricated FROM THE BEGINNING!!!!! Just to hide THE TRUTH!!!!!!!!! You are PATHETIC!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Hopefully other disearning minds here will see through your LIES AND FALSEHOODS and DEMAND ACCOUNTABILITY in 2012 unless you GET YOUR WAY and DESTROY US ALL!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Poor Spelling
You need to use a spell-checker. For example, "disearning"(sic) should be "discerning".
Self-righteous indignation is a poor substitute for a good education and a logical mind
Take your meds; and use a spell-checker
Take your meds; and use a spell-checker
The old 'ignoring of facts by
The old 'ignoring of facts by referring to spell checker' refute. Always a real mature response.
So what, moron, the guy can't spell. Who cares. He outlines fact and speaks from emotion. With all the manipulation and games played by the resident stalker shill on this forum, you can't blame a guy for a little emotional reaction.
However, it could be indicative of blow back, my industry friend, from a populace tired of abuse and powerlessness. Watch your back. Just sayin'.
Enter the attorneys
So, now we will be treated to the nuclear power generation industry attorney arguments.
Well, it is seldom useful to attempt persuading strident advocates.
Nope, thanks anyway.
We have been discussing this just fine since March 11. We don't really need a lawyer to explain physical and medical evidence.
But the lawyers could scarcely be less interesting than the Trolls.
MOX POWERED AIRPLANES ?
Airplanes work MOST of the time. Nukes fail only once in awhile. Why not ?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_aircraft
A fine mix of engineers ( aeronautical and nuclear ) flush with the money and power of the military and ANYTHING is possible. Not that ANY of it is desirable. Some presents are best left unwrapped.
LOL
MOX, an expensive hazard-ridden dead end boondoggle on the road down the rabbit hole of fission for electrical power.
MOX is down ( ...'shutters [for] Britain’s Sellafield mixed-oxide facility') and possibly out (....'its future depends on continued support for nuclear reprocessing from the French government').
With the current mindset in DC the dumping of more money into the dead end MOX plant in GA is unlikely at best. The US is on course to neither produce or use MOX.
Of course China, never one to miss a commercial opportunity, will very likely become and remain as the ONLY MOX producer left. How ironic it will be when the world willingly sends its Pu stockpiles to China.
http://jagadees.wordpress.com/2011/10/13/fukushimas-economic-fallout-shu...
Long Live Nuclear Power (from the sun)
Yes, please, let's limit
Yes, please, let's limit ourselves, our neighbors and our society to only technology that is guaranteed to work perfectly, with no possibility of failure or adverse consequences or effects, one hundred percent of the time.
Scratch nuclear power, naturally. And coal (too dirty). Hydroelectric, too: turbines can break down, rivers can flood - or, worse, run dry. Solar panels are too ugly. Wind turbines and windmills kill birds and make noise (even the Kennedys are against them, in their backyard anyway). Biomass? Too smelly.
Automobiles, of course, are verboten - those disgusting Americans and their petroleum -but steam-powered carriages were pretty dangerous, their boilers blowing up all the time, and if they tipped over or crashed, a fire might result. Horses and buggies? That's animal cruelty (those heartless Amish, with their cynical industrialism!), and those wheels crush Gaia's vegetation and defenseless small creatures, and spoil the pristine Nature they roll through.
Let's all just go back to living in caves, walking, and foraging. It's safer, it's cleaner, and, by Mother Earth, it's more humane. Sattisfied? Good luck with all that. Enjoy your fifteen-minute life span.
bicycles, solar panels, windmills .....and MOX ?
I am rolling on the floor..... your quite the humorist.
In response I must agree but on a very limited and progressive basis. Let us start by eliminating technology that CAN MAKE AREAS THE SIZE OF COUNTRIES AND CONTINENTS UNINHABITABLE FOR HUNDREDS OR THOUSANDS OF YEARS. I guess that means MOX fueled reactors to start....
Of course if we could get a genetic test to determine if the embryo had predilection for lame comparisons, nuclear fission power and lacking humor - we could then make the world a better place. The risk of birth to the mother and the world could be averted and THAT would be a NET INCREASE IN SAFETY and a good thing, don't you agree ?
After all genetic screening is going to to be de rigueur in Japan from this point forward, at least until fertility drops to the point were ANY live birth is valued. Heck, they might even pioneer such a test. Those clever Japanese.
Long Live REAL science.
Amen!
Amen!!!
Automobiles kill about 40,000 to 50,000 people each year. In the past 50 years that we have had nuclear power, that amounts to 2.5 million people.
But is there a call to disband the use of automobiles? Nope!
In the past 50 years that the USA has had commercial nuclear power, how many members of the public have been killed or injured? NONE!
However, which of these two technologies is there a clamor to disband?
Go figure.
Automobiles vs Flying Nukes ?
Is that you hypothetical ?
Who said the nukes were flying?
Who said the nukes were flying? However, I will allow for limited reading comprehension abilities.
Let us compare automobiles vs. commercial nuclear power for the past 50 years that commercial nuclear power has been in existence.
In the USA, during the past 50 years, about 2.5 million people have been killed in automobile accidents. We average about 40,000 to 50,000 people killed each year. ( Thankfully the trend is downward of late ).
In the past 50 years, the number of members of the general public killed or even injured by commercial nuclear power plant operation in the USA is ZERO
I know the anti-nuke don't like the enviable record of the US nuclear power industry. They would rather deal with their nightmare fantasies than reality; but again, that's another of their delusions.
Flying Nukes
That first drag on a cigarette does not kill you. The last drag on a cigarette does not kill you. You die, slowly, somewhere in between.
We are for the most part becoming a non smoking nation. Let's catch up to the rest of the best and become a non nuke nation as well.
The US STILL leads much of the world. Time grows short. The latest 'flying nuke' has made vast parts of Japan UNINHABITABLE. Will the next catastrophic nuke disaster do more than salt us with Cesium and pepper us with Plutonium ? Odds are yes. Odds are, given the age and number of reactors in North America the next Fukushima will happen HERE unless we start shutting them down NOW.
Let us lead once again and make the move toward a fission power and weapon free world.
ROUTINE RADIOACTIVE RELEASES FROM NUCLEAR REACTORS - IT DOESN’T TAKE AN ACCIDENT
To download .pdf version click here.
What you are not supposed
to know:
for a nuclear power plant to release radioactivity into our air, water and soil. All it takes is the plant’s everyday routine operation, and federal regulations permit these radioactive releases.
Accurate accounting of all radioactive wastes released to the air, water and soil from the entire reactor fuel production system is simply not available. The system includes uranium mines and mills, chemical conversion, enrichment and fuel fabrication plants, nuclear power reactors, and radioactive waste storage pools, casks, and
trenches.
Rabid anti-nuke at play above...
Yes - many radionuclides have long half-lives, but in the above litany of radioisotopes in point 13, some of the longest half-life radioisotopes were evidently omitted. Uranium-238 has a half-life of 4.5 Billion years, approximately the age of the Earth. Potassium-40 (K-40) has a half-life of 1.25 Billion years. The radioisotopes listed in 13 above with thousand and million year half-lives are pikers compared to the billion year half-lives of U-238 and K-40. Of course, U-238 and K-40 are naturally occurring, the anti-nukes don't like to mention them.
Even with all the flotsam above about how bad the releases from nuclear power plants are, the populace tolerates something a hundred times worse in terms of radiological emissions; coal power plants
Courtesy of scientists from Oak Ridge National Laboratory:
http://www.ornl.gov/info/ornlreview/rev26-34/text/colmain.html
They concluded that Americans living near coal-fired power plants are exposed to higher radiation doses than those living near nuclear power plants that meet government regulations. This ironic situation remains true today and is addressed in this article.
and
Thus, the population effective dose equivalent from coal plants is 100 times that from nuclear plants.
So what other "scare stories" do the anti-nukes have on tap?
Rabid anti-nuke at play above...
Hmm. I notice that person had 14 items noted and the best you could do was your usual deflection technique "hey, you think nuke power is bad? Look at COAL!!!!!"
Well, that and a lot of bold print again.
OK - if you "think" the response is incomplete
Much of the 14 point rant was about radioactive releases from nuclear power plants. It's claimed in several of the points that radioactive releases are happening, or may happen....
While it is true that nuclear power plants release some radioactive material to the environment, how big a problem is this? From the Health Physics Society at the University of Michigan, we can see the sources of radiation exposure to the average person:
http://www.umich.edu/~radinfo/introduction/radrus.htm
One can see that the amount of the average person's radiation exposure that is due to nuclear power plants ( "nuclear fuel cycle" in the table ) amounts to less than <0.03%.
Mother Nature is the average person's chief source of radiation exposure, not nuclear power plants. Mother Nature exposes you to 3000 times as much radiation as does the operation of nuclear power plants.
So if we eliminated nuclear power plants, your radiation exposure would go down by a absolutely trivial amount. In fact, as the chart shows, you are irradiating yourself with more radiation than that which comes from the nuclear power plants; your "Internal exposure" is 11% of your total. That's because of all the naturally occurring radioactive elements in our bodies.
How about more INFORMATION to stimulate .....
Which is to contrast with artful arrangement and limited selections of data presented as the ONLY or MOST GERMAINE 'information' so as to anesthetize and dissuade from further investigation......
My hope is that people will examine and research FOR THEMSELVES and, developing along the way, an even STRONGER curiosity. It is time for the population to grow (up) and learn the reflex that will serve them in frightening times - that is the REPLACEMENT FEAR WITH CURIOSITY. This forum is just a healthy symptom of a healthy society finding footing and gaining balance in a right of passage.
But you requested 'scary'... how is this ?
Fukushima In Three Parts: it can happen anywhere, it was far worse than most people know, AND it could still get MUCH worse.
or
The disposition of spent fuel pools - especially the shared spent fuel pool and at reactors #3 an #4, and the course and route of transit from the spent fuel pools to (where ever you are) via the jet stream. Now there is something we all need to know more about.
And I hope everyone got what they wanted for Christmas.
What do we do with the Plutonium?
The USA already has 77,000 metric tons of spent nuclear fuel.
About 1% of this, or 770 metric tons consists of Plutonium.
How do we dispose of this Plutonium? This has been the big problem for the Yucca Mountain project - how does one guarantee that Plutonium is not going to find its way into the environment in the extensive time it takes for the Plutonium to decay?
The anti-nukes always say that they didn't want the Plutonium created in the first place. However, that childish response is of zero value because that ship has sailed; the Plutonium exists - now what do we do with it?
Scientists say that we should recycle and burn the Plutonium as fuel. If we do that, we will only have short-lived fission products to dispose of, as Dr. Charles Till of Argonne National Lab states in the following interview with PBS's Frontline:
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/reaction/interviews/till.html
Q: And you repeat the process.
A: Eventually, what happens is that you wind up with only fission products, that the waste is only fission products that have, most have lives of hours, days, months, some a few tens of years. There are a few very long-lived ones that are not very radioactive.
Current power reactors are designed to utilize MOX, and essentially create MOX in situ, even if you load in only uranium fuel.
The main opposition to MOX is from the anti-nuke community because as Dr. Till points out, MOX and recycling spent nuclear fuel is the solution to the longevity of nuclear waste, and the nuclear waste problem. It is THE solution to the nuclear waste problem, and the anti-nuke community can't have that. So they oppose MOX. But what is their solution to the Plutonium that we already have on hand? They have none.
'Holes' by Will Rogers
Number 1 rule of "Holes"
“If you find yourself in a hole, stop digging.”
Will Rogers
http://www.parks.ca.gov/?page_id=23998
We are in a plutonium ‘hole’, thus it seems advisable, to quit producing more.
William Penn Adair Rogers was born November 4th, 1879 on a ranch between Claremore and Oologah, Oklahoma. Will Rogers, the cowboy philosopher, became famous for his homespun humor and his shrewd, timely comments on current life.