NRC Wants 100 Times Higher Acceptable Exposure Level
The NRC is battling the EPA in order to increase the 'acceptable' public exposure limit to 100 times more than currently 'acceptable' in the case of a severe nuclear power plant accident. The NRC has already limited liability to the owners of the nuclear power plants to the resources of that plant alone (the melted down one), and now they want to increase the amount of allowable public exposure. BRAWM members, will this new 100 fold increase in the acceptable radiation exposure be acceptable for you and your children? View Arnie Gunderson's current post; also includes discussion on the fallacy of the MACCS2 method of exposure analysis which the NRC uses and it's designer has repudiated. GIGO: Garbage In, Garbage Out.
"Are Regulators And The Nuclear Industry Applying The Valuable Lessons Learned From Fukushima?"
http://fairewinds.com/content/are-regulators-and-nuclear-industry-applyi...
The search for truth is not
The search for truth is not aided by promulgating lies by the proponents and opponents of nuclear power. Sound public policy, by my lights, is best derived from realistic appraisals of costs and benefits. Deliberate lying in public forums is as harmful as perjury in testimony before courts, legislatures and regulatory bodies. It is evident that such public perjuries are far too common and unpunished.
I am personally convinced of the substantial health hazards associated with human radionuclide uptake. In this regard, it is quite evident that the proponents of this two-order of magnitude exposure increase, are determined to murder a lot of people with cancer and other radiation related diseases.
However, what are we to do with this statement by Helen Caldicott, which is provably false in at least a dozen ways?
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/05/01/opinion/01caldicott.html?_r=3
“Nuclear power is neither clean, nor sustainable, nor an alternative to fossil fuels — in fact, it adds substantially to global warming. Solar, wind and geothermal energy, along with conservation, can meet our energy needs.”
Granted nuclear energy is not ‘clean’, but every other word in the statement is false.
Caldicott LIES
I've heard Caldicott on numerous radio programs saying that if a single kilogram of Plutonium escaped into the environment, that it would kill all life on the Earth.
The problem is that a 1 1/2 decades of atmospheric nuclear put about 10 metric tonnes of Plutonium into the environment, or 10,000 kilograms. The amount that is actually in the environment is 10,000 times the amount that Caldicott says would kill all life on Earth.
Now who is lying?
Question
*****************
Would you mind if I forwarded your accusation of Dr. Caldicott lying to her personally so that she can address it?
Or perhaps you can question her yourself?
I've confronted her.
I've confronted the ignorant propagandist the last time she was on local talk radio. I called in with the above facts and references. She dismisses them and says that I must be paid by the nuclear industry ( which I am not).
She's the ultimate propagandist - she tells lies and doesn't want to hear the truth.
A real piece of work, that one.
Here is Dr. Caldicott's website
http://www.helencaldicott.com/
Ring her up
By my lights, Helen is too intelligent and informed, to be merely mistaken. She clearly and repeatedly misstates a number of simple technical points. So, I do not believe her.
“Nuclear power is sustainable,
Nuclear Power is an alternative to fossil fuels
Nuclear Power does not add substantially to global warming
Anthropomorphic global warming has not been established.
Solar and wind are relatively useless power sources.
Geothermal energy is useful in only a few locations, mostly far from population centers.
Conservation, can slightly reduce our energy needs.
Constant Lies Abound
By my lights, Caldicott AND the nuclear power plant industry are lying - constantly.
Though, it is probably accurate to say that a kG of plutonium, equally distributed into human lungs, would be sufficient to give us all cancer.
Luckily, most of the natural and manmade toxins on earth, do not find their way to our most vulnerable tissues. Else Planet Earth would be as dead as the planet Mercury.
Do the math.
Though, it is probably accurate to say that a kG of plutonium, equally distributed into human lungs, would be sufficient to give us all cancer.
------------------------------------------
Current world population is 7 Billion.
Distribute equally 1 kg = 1000 gm among 7 Billion
That would be 1000 gm / 7 Billion = 1.4e-07 gm/person = 0.1 micrograms / person
NOPE - WRONG! - ERROR!!!
Nobody predicts that less than a microgram will give you cancer!!!
Correct
You are correct. Microgram quantities of Plutonium are naturally occuring.
( You just need stray neutrons to hit U-238, which is everywhere in microgram quantities )
Snicker
Oh yeah, lots of naturally occuring uranium dust clouds on every continent.
Heavier than a bullet, but 'wafted' in the slightest breeze.
Ain't happening ...
But was it as good for you as it was for us?
LOL
Lots of Uranium "wafted'
Evidently you don't know that you will find a microgram of uranium in the dirt under your fingernails. However, one of the biggest sources of atmospheric Uranium that you breathe is due to coal power plants:
http://www.ornl.gov/info/ornlreview/rev26-34/text/colmain.html
Evidently, you didn't know that you are breathing uranium / thorium from this source
Read it and weep.
Wrong again
**********
Any uranium under our fingernails is not DEPLETED URANIUM which comes from the spent nuclear process that occurs in a nuclear reactor.
Liars and Losers
No one mentioned depleted uranium, on this thread, until you.
I did not mention any particular uranium isotope.
But, the logical flaw is apparent. You are attempting to spring traps on the unaligned. That is quite pointless.
Only a tiny percentage of the human species is a strident supporter or committed opponent to nuclear power. The rest of us LEAN somewhat to one side or the other.
I lean, ever so slightly, in favor of continued nuclear power plant construction and operation. The barrage of OBVIOUS lies, by both sides, makes a mockery of the rational process.
Thus, I find Arnie Gunderson to be much more persuasive than the strident, lying advocates.
Gunderson is a joke
Thus, I find Arnie Gunderson to be much more persuasive than the strident, lying advocates.
==========================
Gunderson is a joke. He still thinks Unit 3 was a nuclear explosion.
It was not - just a bigger hydrogen explosion
Looks like a nuke
*
I have examined the available evidence, and personally conclude that a stray criticality explosion can not be ruled-out in the MOX-fueled Fukushima Daiichi Unit-3.
Looks like a low yield nuke to me.
In adddition to the forensic evidence, the nuclear power industry has behaved in a fashion consistent with a guilty suspect. Concealed evidence is a tell tale sign of guilt.
Open scientific enquiry into the circumstances of the power plant failures has been impeded by all the players.
Nuclear CAN be ruled out
I have examined the available evidence, and personally conclude that a stray criticality explosion can not be ruled-out in the MOX-fueled Fukushima Daiichi Unit-3.
Looks like a low yield nuke to me.
==================================================
What do you think a low yield nuke looks like? Did you notice that the fireball is yellow, and Gunderson also noted that. A nuclear explosion fireball with always be WHITE - since nuclear explosions are so hot they radiate in X-rays, and therefore will also radiate ALL the colors of visible light. A yellow fireball means the explosion was not hot enough to radiate greens, blues, and violet. That's the hallmark of a chemical explosion.
You can't get a nuclear explosion if the fuel is too dilute. U-235 content of <20% or Pu-239 content of <14% mixed in U-238 will NOT give a nuclear explosion. The MOX fuel in unit 3 is 7% Pu-239
Now tell me why you think it looks to be nuclear.
RED is dead
Propagandists, failing at one argument, routinely jump-shift to equally inaccurate 'little stories'.
The sun is Red at dawn. Giant RED stars such as Betelgeuse, AKA Alpha Orionis are what color?
Perhaps some might argue that a predominant perceived TINT of color, defines fission and or fusion reactions.
Personally, I am having trouble catching my breath, after such a long laughing spell.
Oh, and anyone who wishes to 'google-up' a photo of virtually every nuclear weapon ever detonated, will quickly note, that all the colors of the rainbow are represented.
Seriously though, please DO take this comedy routine on the nightclub circuit.
WRONG WRONG WRONG!!!
The ignorant are so easily amused!!!
The light that comes to us from the Sun doesn't actually come from the part of the Sun that has ongoing nuclear reactions. Because of the size of the Sun, it has a "photosphere". The Sun is so large that the photons from the nuclear reaction interact with the material of the Sun. Only the photons that are in the outermost annulus of the Sun, called the photosphere can escape and those are the photons we see. This outer photosphere has a temperature from about 4500 K to 6000 K; so that is the perceived "color temperature" of the Sun.
However, the photons from the nuclear core would be WHITE if we could see them.
At dawn and dusk, the Sun is red due to the action of our ATMOSPHERE. It is the way the atmosphere scatters light of differing frequencies that is responsible for our blue sky, and the red color of the Sun at dawn.
If you look at nuclear explosion photos - you will see many colors. But these are NOT photos of the fireball. When I say FIREBALL, I mean that initial flash of light, and if you look at the movies of nuclear tests; you will see that the initial flash is WHITE!!
The fact that you think this is all comedy shows how STUPID you are.
Correct
You are correct about the Sun and the significance of color.
It just goes to show how desperate the anti-nukes get when they are shown to be wrong.
Red Giants
Let me second the above.
The poster that brought up the red giants being red doesn't understand basic astronomy. (Probably never took a course in astronomy or astrophysics)
The temperatures associated with red light are orders of magnitude too low to support thermonuclear fusion. The poster that talked about the photosphere of a star is correct. The red photons we see from a red giant come from the red photosphere of the red giant, and not the thermonuclear core which is orders of magnitude hotter.
The poster that brought up red giants is so arrogant; and so wrong.
Ha
The stars are nukes and they appear red.
Photosphere
Evidently you don't understand WHY stars appear red.
Stars are very large, and hence we don't get to see the photons that are produced as a result of the nuclear reactions. The temperatures of nukes, both stars and nuclear weapons, are in the millions of degrees K. However, our nuclear weapons are physically small, and the photons corresponding to the very high temperatures can escape.
Stars are a different story. The star is very large, and the photons produced by nuclear reactions in the million degree core do not get out of the star. Hence we don't see the "nuclear" photons from a star, as we do with nuclear weapons.
The photons that we get to see from a star come from the outermost annulus. The temperatures here are much lower than in the nuclear core. This region that we can see is called the "photosphere". The temperature of the Sun's photosphere varies from 4500K to 6000K with 5800K being about average.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Photosphere
That's why our "standard" for light is a color temperature of about 5800K
Red giants are even bigger stars, and their photospheres are even cooler than the Sun's photosphere, hence they appear red.
You might want to take a course in astronomy or astrophysics and learn about this.
Correct.
The above poster is correct. We only see the outermost layer of the Sun, which has a temperature of about 5800K. However, 5800K is too low a temperature for thermonuclear fusion - that takes temperatures of many millions of degrees.
The Sun and the other stars have cores that have temperatures of millions of degrees, so that's where the thermonuclear fusion is ongoing.
If you were to look at the spectrum of radiation from a nuclear energy producing object, the photons would be X-ray photons and everything of lower frequency, including all frequencies of visible light. Hence, that object would look WHITE to us.
If you look at the initial flash of a nuclear weapon ( not advisable without eye protection ), it will be WHITE. The Fukushima Unit 3 explosion was no nuclear explosion.
I know those opposed to nuclear power want to believe Gunderson, but he's just a paid antinuclear shill, with zero scientific credibility.
WRONG WRONG WRONG!!!
Again YOU are the one that is WRONG!!!
Depleted Uranium is a byproduct of a Uranium enrichmeht plant; NOT a reactor.
Why are you bringing up depleted uranium? Evidently you don't know that there
is actually very little difference between natural and depleted uranium.
Natural Uranium is 99.3% U-238 and 0.7% U-235
Depleted Uranium is 99.8% U-238 and 0.2% U-235
Both natural and depleted uranium are >99% U-238
For the purpose here, we have a distinction without a difference.
Depleted Uranium Health Effects
................................................................
"Verified adverse health effects from personal experience, physicians, and from personal reports from individuals with known DU exposures include: (a) Reactive airway disease, (b) neurological abnormalities, (c) kidney stones and chronic kidney pain, (d) rashes, (e) vision degradation and night vision losses, (f) gum tissue problems, (g) lymphoma, (h) various forms of skin and organ cancer, (I) neuro-psychological disorders, (j) uranium in semen, (k) sexual dysfunction, and (l) birth defects in offspring."
http://www.iacenter.org/depleted/duupdate.htm
Sure.
Yes - and you get the SAME effects from natural Uranium.
That's natural Uranium that Mother Nature made.
So where does that leave the "If Mother Nature makes it it is OK, but if Man makes it, it is bad" maxim?
It leaves it in the trash, where it belongs.
Nobody doubts the effects. But those effects are not unique to man-made products.
Try to keep up as to what the discussion is about.
More specious GIGO, from
More specious GIGO, from another failed dissembler.
A mic of U will not randomly, and routinely convert to plutonium. Pu is quite rare in nature, almost non-existent. The normal decay daughters of uranium are directed toward lead.
But keep up these comedy routines, WE are all. in stitches.
You have a great future in comedy.
YAWN
Every kid that took any physical science, in my high school, was introduced to the natural process of nuclear decay. Over an extended period of time, uranium decays to lead. The process and time interval varies by isotope, but the end result is Pb. It is therefore pretty darn stupid, to harangue those of us with real scientific backgrounds, with weak BS.
Plutonium is generally considered to be virtually non-existent in nature, though some infinitesimal amounts can be detected, if the sensor resolution is sufficiently sensitive.
A microgram of Uranium, under your fingernail, or in your lungs, is extremely unlikely, in nature, to 'catch' a random (slow) neutron, and spontaneously 'convert' to Plutonium.
And the Easter Bunny is very unlikely to be found in my backyard, hiding colored eggs.
Oh and that Gabon natural reactor has been dormant for a very long while.
Plutonium in nature
Actually, you can find Plutonium in nature pretty much everywhere you look.
A small amount is created by Uranium absorbing stray neutrons from cosmic rays. However, the vast majority is due to atmospheric nuclear testing in the late '40s and in the '50s.
Yes - the Gabon reactor no longer functions. The U-235 content in natural uranium today is 0.7%; but back when the Gabon reactor was functioning, the U-235 content in natural Uranium was about 3-4%; about what we enrich Uranium to for use in power reactors.
Evidently, you missed the whole point of this discussion. The anti-nukes like to claim that Man is "evil" because only Man makes Tritium, and radioactive Cesium, and Plutonium. Mother Nature is "pure" and "sweet" and would never make these "evil" substances.
The whole point is that Mother Nature has made these "evil" materials, just as Man has done.
The whole idea of classifying substances as "good" and "evil" is rather childish and ridiculous. Man is not "evil" for making substances which Mother Nature herself has also made at one time.
Rather obviously, 'Mother
Rather obviously, 'Mother Nature' is a mean old lady.
MN produces rattlesnakes, cobras, botulism, oleanders, castor beans, anthrax, cyanide, arsonic, volcanoes, ebola and great white sharks.
Human beings have produced our share of death dealing devices as well.
It has always been a challenge to stay alive on Planet Earth.
MN has produced some deadly radioactive substances; as has humanity.
The hazards vary widely for the wide assortment of man-made and natural radioactive substances and emissions.
The Pro-Nuke propagandists and the Anti-Nuke apologists are laughable buffoons or perhaps babbling baboons. The reality is ... all technologies and policies amount to a fine balancing of risk and benefit. Every medicine, energy source, public policy and every other decision is a trade-off.
Packs of lies, screamed by packs of liars; are merely part of the background noise in the public arena.
Baloney
Well one can certainly see you don't know your nuclear physics.
The creation of Plutonium from Uranium is NOT a decay process.
It is due to neutron absorption; namely radiative capture.
U-238 + n ---> U-239 ---> Np-239 --> Pu-239
The last 2 reaction are short term beta decays.
Where does that neutron come from? There are lots of "stray" neutrons due to the interaction of cosmic rays with our atmosphere.
The cosmic rays yielding neutrons is also how Mother Nature creates Carbon-14 and Tritium
The above poster is correct
The poster immediately above is the one that knows his/her science.
The other poster is the one that does not know the science.
Carbon14, Tritium, and even Plutonium are all formed naturally due to the action of cosmic rays producing a "shower" of particles including neutrons. Those neutrons can activate otherwise stable materials, and give us a multitude of radioactive species.
Oklo / Gabon Reactor
Don't forget that Mother Nature made Plutonium at the Oklo / Gabon Reactors:
http://www.aip.org/pnu/2004/split/706-1.html
http://www.spacedaily.com/news/early-earth-04n.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_nuclear_fission_reactor
Don't forget, mother nature
Don't forget, mother nature makes red hot magma, don't worry, totally harmless great exfoliating qualities!
LOL
And bullets are an excellent source of harmless, nutritional lead.
These guys should take this farce on the comedy circuit.
The MACCS2 code has nothing
The MACCS2 code has nothing to do with this. They are just raising the limit to a less conservative value. There is still no evidence of radiation induced cancers from doses less than 2 rem. I do not care about this increase, it will not change anything.
****
It will change exposure to 100-times what you're receiving now.
That's a huge change since there is no such thing as a safe dose of radiation.
Interesting how an agency can just snap their fingers and POOF the radiation limit is raised and it's magically safe.
Reminds me of when TEPCO raised children's exposure after the meltdowns until there was such an outcry that they lowered them again.
Since the bar on these limits can be lowered and raised and raised and lowered when it suits a situation, I don't trust the limits are ever safe, and therefore I'll stick with the fact that any increased dose in radiation is bad.
WRONG WRONG WRONG!!!
It will change exposure to 100-times what you're receiving now.
=====================================================
NO it will not - because most of what you are receiving now is due to Mother Nature
Courtesy of the Health Physics Society chapter at the University of Michigan:
http://www.umich.edu/~radinfo/introduction/radrus.htm
The dose due to nuclear power ( "nuclear fuel cycle" in chart ) is <0.03% of one's yearly radiation exposure. That's 1 part in 3000.
The biggest component of your radiation exposure is due to Mother Nature, and she doesn't care what the EPA or NRC sets as the limits.
Wrong! Wrong! Wrong!
What Mother Nature is exposing us all to us NOT MANMADE radiation.
Mother Nature is exposing us to radiation such as Potassium-40 which has been on earth for eons and that the human body has adapted to.
The human body has not adapted to MAN-MADE radiation that is produced in a nuclear reactor.
HUGE difference.
NO DIFFERENCE
This is part of the mythology that the anti-nukes spin.
They claim that the "natural" radioactivity is harmless, and the "man-made" radioactivity is sinister and harmful.
For the most part here, we are talking about both natural and man-made radioactive species which are beta emitters. That means they emit high energy electrons.
There are NOT "natural" electrons emitted by natural radioacitivy, and "man-made" electrons emitted by "man-made" radioactivity.
NO - an electron is an electron is an electron.
The electrons may have different energies, and a man-made beta emitter can emit electrons of lower energy or higher energy than natural beta emitter.
Beta radiation from natural radioactivity is every bit as damaging as beta radioactivity from man-made radioactivity
The only thing artificial here is the claimed difference.
If there is no difference,
If there is no difference, could you point me to the nearest nuclear reactor that is powered by potassium-40? If there is no difference could we just convert all the reactors to run on bananas??? That way when one leaks or explodes, no biggie, banana pudding for everyone!!
Boy are you confused!!!
Boy are you confused!!! You are confusing radioactivity with energy production.
Nuclear reactors don't run because their fuel is radioactive, they run because their fuel is fissile. The reactor is fostering the fission reaction, which gives you lots of energy. There's very little energy to be had from just radioactivity.
Try to THINK it out. A naturally made radioactive nucleus (K-40) emits an electron in what is called beta radiation. An artificially made radioactive nucleus emits an electron, also beta radiation.
Now the electron passes near a human cell. How does that human cell know that the electron is from a natural or artificial radioisotope? The fact is, it doesn't.
Mother Nature's radioactivity is just as dangerous as man-made radioactivity.
We haven't "adapted" to K-40 radiation so that it is harmless.
We have evolved DNA repair mechanisms ( just like we have an immune system ) for combatting the effects of radiation damage, and they work just as well on radiation damage from man-made sources as they do for natural radioactive sources.
Excellent point
I have never seen a person who opposes nuclear energy spin anything, yet I have witnessed lies and twisting and spin from members of the pro-nuclear crowd that is astounding.
Shows how much you know
Shows how much you know.
I note just the OPPOSITE - it is the anti-nukes that are spinning,
and have been shown to be WRONG.
People you refer to as "anti-nukes"
...are just good-hearted, humanitarian people who have seen thru the years of lying and "plausible deniability" of the pro-nuclear crowd.
According to the EPA:
"The human body is born with potassium-40 in its tissues and it is the most common radionuclide in human tissues and in food. We evolved in the presence of potassium-40 and our bodies have well-developed repair mechanisms to respond to its effects."
However, with a MAN-MADE RADIONUCLIDE produced in a nuclear reactor such as cesium-137, the EPA says this:
"Like all radionuclides, exposure to radiation from cesium-137 results in increased risk of cancer."
The difference is clear.
LIES and SPIN!!
The DNA repair mechanisms that we have evolved work JUST AS WELL on damage caused by man-made radioactivity as with natural radioactivity.
THINK about it. When a human cell has its DNA damaged by ionization due to a passing electron from a beta emitter; how does that cell know that the electron was from natural or aritificial radioactivity?
It doesn't!!!
Consider your OWN QUOTE from EPA:
"Like all radionuclides, exposure to radiation from cesium-137 results in increased risk of cancer."
The words "like all radionuclides" also include NATURAL radioactivity.
Natural radioactivity is just as bad as artificial radioactivity in causing cancer.
However, with Pottassium 40 we have a "problem". We NEED Pottassium in order to live.
So we have to "put up with" the damage from K-40.
Anti-nukes are such "binary thinkers" ( single bit ). They "think" that something is either all good (safe) or all bad (unsafe). They can't see the shades of "gray".
You are ignoring the facts
As the EPA website states, the human body has evolved to handle Potassium-40.
However, the EPA says that Cesium-137 can cause cancer. The human body has not evolved to handle it, and it can cause cancer in a human.
Those are the facts.
K-40 has a 1460 keV gamma.
K-40 has a 1460 keV gamma. Cs-137 has a 662 keV gamma. Both cause damage to cells and DNA. Both can technically cause cancer. Our bodies have numerous mechanisms to repair damage. If a cell gets damaged by a 1460 keV gamma or a 662 keV gamma, it gets repaired by the same mechanisms. FYI, 1460 keV can cause more damage to cell since it has more energy.
America, ranked 17th in the world in science education.
bring on the banana reactor
bring on the banana reactor then wanker.