Pointed questions for nuclear enthusiasts and careerists

[RDTroja]

I expected a barrage of nonsense...my expectations for this forum continues to be fulfilled.

And yet here you are. Your time must be pretty worthless to you. If you don't care enough to find out the difference between Chernobyl and current events and still come in with the comments you have made, you have not earned any more than disdain.

One thing we tend to do here (for better or worse) is encourage people to earn what they get. If that is a foreign concept, then either learn or be ready to put up with it. You are welcome to stay and contribute, but you have to earn respect. So far you haven't earned any but you come in with both guns blazing, so you get none. Get over it and quit whining.

[SRO-WANNABE]

INES level 7...are you sure...wow, that"ll never happen again...all we have to do is learn from the past and make sure it never happens again, right.

Oh, you mean there was a plant in the Ukraine that had a level 7? So, let's do some really cool lessons learned stuff and declare victory and "it will never happen again."

If you are buying this line, then you probably believed the big "mission accomplished" sign George Bush had on the carrier after the second Iraq invasion.

You guys gotta start thinking outside the little nuclear power box...that naïveté went by the wayside years ago.

You can bet I will be banned from this forum posthaste...you guys need to read up on Black Swan events before you declare victory over bad things happening to good people.

I fail to see your point.  Obviously we know your motive.

So I guess since we could end up in bad car accidents caused by catastrophic events or inclement weather we should stop driving.  I guess since there's a chance that a part that is instrumental in controlling the vehicle could fail we should quit driving.  Throw engineering out the window.  It happened once, you bet it will happen again.  Sell your cars now and save yourselves.  No improvements could fix the problems associated with motor vehicles.  I mean look at brand XYZ.  Their cars contained faulty ball joints that would fail and immediately cause their driver to lose control and crash the vehicle.  If it happened to them it will happen to the rest.  

This mentality compares to your own.  Now explain to us again; why should we take your path of reasoning concerning nuclear power?

I'm dying to know which group you are associated with....please share...

[MacGyver]

I expected a barrage of nonsense...my expectations for this forum continues to be fulfilled.

(aka π) x 10⁵⁰ quatloos against the newcomer.








How's that for nonsense TROLL (aka RealityCheck)?

[roadhp]

Loved that episode.

[OldHP]

I expected a barrage of nonsense...my expectations for this forum continues to be fulfilled.

Then why bother visiting or posting,  !

[HydroDave63]

You can bet I will be banned from this forum posthaste...you guys need to read up on Black Swan events before you declare victory over bad things happening to good people.

your new avatar?

[Matthew B]

You guys or gals must have some pretty gravy jobs to be setting on here and talking nonsense and questioning other's intelligence. Must be nice!!

Ever hear of shift work?

Did you notice the lights don't go off at 5PM and come back on at 8AM?

There are people who work at the places that supply that power 24/365.  Their off time is in the middle of the day.

[Matthew B]

OH, and PS:  I do question your intelligence since you weren't able to figure that out on your own.

[namlive]

First off, I hated the movie Black Swan. Who are they kidding? If she didn't really break the mirror at the end, where did she get the shard that she used to kill herself? I know I have a hard time covering CRDs with a 6 inch glass shard in my gut, I find it hard to believe someone would be dancing...and hey! One more thing. It takes a long time to die from a stomach wound.

Now having worked at TMI, I know exactly what isotopes were where and in what quantity. They were not exactly honest about their releases to the public, and the NRC gave them a wink and a nod. It is not that they did anything horrific, they didn't. But I would not put honesty and integrity on GPU's list. Anyone ever use the words "integrity" and "PECO" in the same sentence without lying? Speaking of integrity, anyone ever work for Integrity Radiation Management? I will say we are better now than before, (especially since I am off the road) but please stop making me laugh.

Dave Warren- you are correct. As long as the industry preaches the non-threshold linear model, I will use their numbers. Of course these are cancer deaths, does that  mean twice as many would actually get cancer with half being cured? So does getting cancer and then losing your home to medical expenses to save your life doesn't factor into the stats? Having been out west, I would say people who live at higher elevations in the US tend to have healthier life styles then those low landers in southern fried death states. That might skew the results.

Japan is doing Sr analysis. They  have a 3-4 week turn around time to allow for ingrowth after the separation process.

I can hear on Southpark, "Level 7 is bad. Okay"

[plutone]

Okaaay. (Takes a deep breath). Please don't confuse me with Other Posters.

Opinion poll cont'd:

1) Is the IAEA Level 7 designation appropriate? Was it delayed too long compared to events? When did F'shima exceed TMI?
2) Given that TMI had only operated for 1 year, had an empty SFP and its hydrogen explosion was contained without creating damage to outside equipment or a radioactive rubble field, how long will it take to stabilize F'shima, how long to cleanup and will units #5 & 6 ever operate again?
3) A recent report states that American reactors have up to 10x more spent fuel onsite and their SFPs, designed to hold 1/2 core, now contain up to 5 cores. Should there be a continued operation requirement to reduce this inventory? Should the SFPs be req'd to have backup cooling power systems? Should SFPs be req'd to have hard containment?

Thanks all.

[Marlin]

Okaaay. (Takes a deep breath). Please don't confuse me with Other Posters.

Opinion poll cont'd:

Much better you left out biased qualifiers this time, you may get a response for these.

[bradley535]

Check out the annual number of deaths caused by various electrical power generation methods. Nuclear power has, by far, the lowest [http://nextbigfuture.com/2008/03/deaths-per-twh-for-all-energy-sources.html]. No coal mines, dam bursts, dust explosions, carbon emissions, and less than a quarter of the industrial accidents of any other power generation. Life is life, and life is more important than the inconvenience that this plant has caused after being hit by an unprecedented natural disaster.

So far, no one has died from the radiation (and that includes the plant workers) and no one will. No one will suffer mutations or genetic disorders. Three workers so far have been exposed to levels that can be linked to an increased risk of cancer. This increased risk is less than that of working in a restaurant that has a smoking section [http://ec.europa.eu/energy/nuclear/radiation_protection/doc/publication/125.pdf]. All of these statements are easily researched and available to the public.

People don't want to admit this, but money=life. Don't believe me? There are studies that are done to see how many lives would be saved if streets were widened, crosswalks were put up, or streetlights installed. Decisions get made to install or not install based on the cost verses the amount of lives it would save per year. Based on processes like these the US government has put a value on the average human life at ~$23,000, given an average lifespan of 80years.

Everybody yells that money isn't worth life... Everybody is wrong. It is, because it has to be. Money isn't just money, it is the medium by which we exchange services. There is only so much work that can be done, and only so much money that can be spent. So in the end, saving money is the same as saving lives. It sounds cold, but it's true. Even were it not, nuclear power would still be the safest way to generate electricity.

INES level 7...are you sure...wow, that"ll never happen again...all we have to do is learn from the past and make sure it never happens again, right.

Oh, you mean there was a plant in the Ukraine that had a level 7? So, let's do some really cool lessons learned stuff and declare victory and "it will never happen again."

If you are buying this line, then you probably believed the big "mission accomplished" sign George Bush had on the carrier after the second Iraq invasion.

You guys gotta start thinking outside the little nuclear power box...that naïveté went by the wayside years ago.

You can bet I will be banned from this forum posthaste...you guys need to read up on Black Swan events before you declare victory over bad things happening to good people.

You use this "level 7" as if it were something that it is not. You seem to believe that it is a catch all for nuclear accident severity, and that its scale is for the overall effect on society. A level 7 event is not twice as bad as level 3.5. It isn't, and there is no such thing as a level 3.5. My point is, the levels do not work at all like that. It's just a set of categories to judge the impact on the industry and community. Most level 4 incidents don't even involve the release of radioactive material into the environment. This is a level 7 incident, by definition. Mostly, this is due to the need for the implementation of planned and extended countermeasures; and not so much for widespread health and environmental effects. This is not like Chernobyl in the slightest bit. Chernobyl was caused by human error and improper action, and resulted in the death of workers and widespread impact on the health of the nearby public.

The MITNSE website is a great place to get a summed up and accurate description of events in Japan's nuclear plants. It breaks down a lot of the ‘mumbo jumbo’ we spout here as a way of life. We spout this mumbo jumbo here, because this is our home. You have walked into our home, asked us your questions (to which the answers were already available should you have looked), and then spewed arrogance when we have answered them for you. It is upsetting to see someone act this way; however, you are a guest and I will treat you as one, answer your questions, and now ask you to behave yourself. Should you fail to do so then, yes, I would hope that you be asked to leave by those whom have the authority to do so.

[Marlin]

1) Is the IAEA Level 7 designation appropriate?

Yes 7 is appropriate for Fukishima but it still falls short of Chernobyl in terms of public and worker impact.

1) When did F'shima exceed TMI?

Depending on what you use as a yardstick, it was when the onsite backup systems were taken out by the tsunami or when the secondary containment was destroyed by hydrogen explosions. I suppose you could argue that the lose of spent fuel pool water level as that is what caused the first major release of activity.

2) Given that TMI had only operated for 1 year, had an empty SFP and its hydrogen explosion was contained without creating damage to outside equipment or a radioactive rubble field, how long will it take to stabilize F'shima, how long to cleanup and will units #5 & 6 ever operate again?

One of our operators should answer this but Fukishima was an older GE boiling water reactor and TMI was B&W designed pressurized water reactor so comparisons are apples and oranges.

3) A recent report states that American reactors have up to 10x more spent fuel onsite and their SFPs, designed to hold 1/2 core, now contain up to 5 cores. Should there be a continued operation requirement to reduce this inventory? Should the SFPs be req'd to have backup cooling power systems? Should SFPs be req'd to have hard containment?

We use dry storage for older fuel and most plants installed high density fuel storage racks many years ago. Most of your question are really for engineers and designers but I am sure some of our more senior operators can give you a very good educated guess.




You may exhale now.  

[plutone]

Reply to bradley535: (Although this post was not directed at me).

I take your point about the mortality associated with various energy sources. There is no free lunch and the mining accidents, air pollution and CO2 releases from coal are horrendous. There is even reason to believe that radiation releases from coal plants exceed that of nuclear in normal operation, apparently.

Nevertheless to call the F'shima situation an "inconvenience" is false. The thousands of people evacuated, perhaps never to return, the fishing and farming halted for decades, the worry over the future health of their families - that is an insult.

Your claim that no one will die is patently untrue. The workers, now 4 weeks into this nightmare, will undoubtably suffer severe effects. As winds spread the contamination around the Northern Hemisphere and milk in the US exceeds max values there will be consequences.

There is nothing about this situation that is comparable to "the smoking section of a restaurant". Your denial undercuts your original thesis and only inspires scepticism in fairminded observers.

[OldHP]

Reply to bradley535: (Although this post was not directed at me).

There is even reason to believe that radiation releases from coal plants exceed that of nuclear in normal operation, apparently.

As winds spread the contamination around the Northern Hemisphere and milk in the US exceeds max values there will be consequences.

There is nothing about this situation that is comparable to "the smoking section of a restaurant". Your denial undercuts your original thesis and only inspires scepticism in fairminded observers.

1. Measured and Proven

2. Milk is no where near the max values, the levels reported and documented are so low that 10 years ago they would have been undetectable.  However, we report what we see.  Unfortuantely, the press, you, and realitycheck have the belief that; if it is detectable - it is going to kill you.

3. Go out and buy an air sampler and take a sample in the smoking section of a resturant, have it analyzed at a recognized lab and then think about it.

I'll say the same thing I said to reality check - "Why bother visiting or posting  !

[namlive]

The no one died from nuclear power is misleading. The industry doesn't take credit for any of the cancer deaths caused by exposure to radiation, because they have plausible deny-ability. I know a family that developed thyroid cancer after TMI.  Did TMI cause it? I know of an individual who would remove their dosimetry so they could stay at an outage longer. They received very high, unrecorded exposure to their stomach and later died from stomach cancer. That doesn't count as an industry death either. The increase in cancer rates among uranium miners? How is that overlooked? So far RECA has paid out $1.6 billion dollars, much of which went to Uranium miners, although those miners mined uranium for the Cold War and not commercial reactors. It would seem to me at least one person died from uranium mining.
http://www.wise-uranium.org/uhm.html

The nuclear industry also has industrial deaths, people getting electrocuted, getting their head crushed by an overhead crane, or guys falling off of slippery rocks because PECO wouldn't supply them with a flotation device (They got fined $300 for that.)

Nuclear power: It is safer than working in an office and getting a paper cut.

[RAD-GHOST]

Your claim that no one will die is patently untrue. The workers, now 4 weeks into this nightmare, will undoubtedly suffer severe effects. As winds spread the contamination around the Northern Hemisphere and milk in the US exceeds max values there will be consequences.

I, like many, pretty much knew it was a matter of time before your true agenda surfaced!

That statement is PATENTLY UNTRUE and ABSOLUTELY FALSE!  Your facts are presumption!  What are those presumptions based on.....  If an urge to massage your ego dictates your facts, then roll with it...preferably somewhere else!

Dictated, but Not Read....RG!

PS:  We're not a Tuff crowd, just an Educated one.......

[Cellman]

INES level 7...are you sure...wow, that"ll never happen again...all we have to do is learn from the past and make sure it never happens again, right.

Mr. Reality Check...I'm not in the industry, just an interested supporter. In regards to the quote above:
1. TMI was a fairly classic LOCA. It hasn't happened again because serious reforms have helped to eliminate deficiencies.
2. Chernobyl was a Supercriticality. It hasn't happened again because the deficiencies were brought to light and mitigated as well as could be in an RBMK.
3. Fukushima is a station blackout from a natural event well beyond the design basis of the plant. There will be reforms because of it. I think it's important to realize that the Danai plant was actually closer to the epicenter and tsunami, but reached safe shutdown without a substantial issue. This tells me that the deficiencies in the earlier reactors were recognized and improvements were made as the designs evolved.

Along those lines, the best way to improve the safety of the industry is to start building new plants. If the permitting and construction of new plants was straightforward and practical, then it's more realistic to expect the retirement of older plants. We've seen this with coal fired generation. During the last decade, the regs were such that new coal could be permitted and built. When these plants came on line in the past few years, a great deal of older, less efficient generation was retired.

[plutone]

Reply to rad-ghost:
My statement had 2 parts:

1) That at least some of the courageous workers who have been battling this thing for over 4 weeks now are likely to suffer severe health effects. There have been high level releases of gases and radioactive particles, levels have been poorly monitored and sometimes off the scale of the measuring equipment, there has been a shortage of dosimeters and some heroic emergency measures have been necessary. Do you think the workers will all be fine?

2) The spread of radiactive substances across the Northern Hemisphere and now showing up in food products in the US will have some consequences. I'm not claiming that everyone is going to die, just that you cannot deposit longlived isotopes into the environment without having some effects. The numbers may be small but they will happen. The nuclear industry gets away wth denying this by focusing on external doses and the shortlived nuclides, with the cynical knowledge that connecting any future cancer case with any specific radiation release will be almost impossible.

Very few serious answers to my questions so far...

[OldHP]

Very few serious answers to my questions so far...

   

Just maybe because you haven't really asked questions, just made statements!

The more I've gone back and read, I'm beginning to think you and realitycheck might just be the same person.

JM

[RDTroja]

Reply to rad-ghost:
My statement had 2 parts:

1) That at least some of the courageous workers who have been battling this thing for over 4 weeks now are likely to suffer severe health effects. There have been high level releases of gases and radioactive particles, levels have been poorly monitored and sometimes off the scale of the measuring equipment, there has been a shortage of dosimeters and some heroic emergency measures have been necessary. Do you think the workers will all be fine?

2) The spread of radiactive substances across the Northern Hemisphere and now showing up in food products in the US will have some consequences. I'm not claiming that everyone is going to die, just that you cannot deposit longlived isotopes into the environment without having some effects. The numbers may be small but they will happen. The nuclear industry gets away wth denying this by focusing on external doses and the shortlived nuclides, with the cynical knowledge that connecting any future cancer case with any specific radiation release will be almost impossible.

Very few serious answers to my questions so far...

Since anything deposited into the environment will have some consequences, your statements are correct. Whether those consequences are significant or not is yet to be determined. The amounts found to date are so far below levels of concern that they are truly insignificant and of no consequence. You also ignore that the amount of long-lived radioactive materials effectively removed from the environment (by not letting coal plants spew them out) is significant -- far more so than anything found outside of the immediate area of the event.

Yes, it is very bad in Japan, but did anyone notice that there was an earthquake and tsunami that killed more than ten thousand people? The added health effects of the nuclear plant problems will pale in comparison. The long term disruption of lives will be greater because of the nuclear plants, but not by enough to even compare to what nature did. Stop trying to sensationalize this just because the word nuclear is associated with it. You are degrading the real tragedy that stuck the area and KILLED THOUSANDS! Those people are gone, not just inconvenienced. Those families are destroyed and you are trying to make a story (and probably a profit of some sort) out of an issue that really is just scary because some people are trying to make it so. Will there be consequences? Yes, absolutely. Will there be some probability that some of the people DIRECTLY involved will suffer some health issues or maybe even die? Yes... a relatively few. Will anyone outside the area likely die because of this? Statistically that is doubtful, but not impossible. But, over 10,000 people are already dead and hundreds of thousands more are much more than inconvenienced by what happened there.

Take away perspective and make things sound just as scary as you like. I am more afraid of earthquakes, tsunamis and coal plants than I am of nuclear plants. Even melted ones.

[Nuclear NASCAR]

 

The more I've gone back and read, I'm beginning to think you and realitycheck might just be the same person.

JM

They're not the same person.  If they are they're getting a lot of frequent flyer miles.

Reply to rad-ghost:
My statement had 2 parts:

1) That at least some of the courageous workers who have been battling this thing for over 4 weeks now are likely to suffer severe health effects. There have been high level releases of gases and radioactive particles, levels have been poorly monitored and sometimes off the scale of the measuring equipment, there has been a shortage of dosimeters and some heroic emergency measures have been necessary. Do you think the workers will all be fine?

Initial answer as to how the workers will be?  I don't think that they will all be fine.  Now let me give you MY definition of fine.  Fine is healthy both mentally & physically.  I don't know how anyone could go through such an event and be fine.  

I'll make an assumption that my definition isn't what you were asking so vaguely.  Will they be without long-term health effects due to the exposure they've received?  I don't have the expertise to answer that one.  My gut instinct is that it's too early to know yet.  That's why you're not getting the answers you want.  (Well, that and the fact that you seem to have an agenda that becomes clearer with each post)  

The lessons learned at TMI & Chernobyl weren't learned within the first 5 weeks after the accidents.  Please keep this in mind while seeking & judging answers.

2) The spread of radiactive substances across the Northern Hemisphere and now showing up in food products in the US will have some consequences. I'm not claiming that everyone is going to die, just that you cannot deposit longlived isotopes into the environment without having some effects. The numbers may be small but they will happen. The nuclear industry gets away wth denying this by focusing on external doses and the shortlived nuclides, with the cynical knowledge that connecting any future cancer case with any specific radiation release will be almost impossible.

Very few serious answers to my questions so far...

Again, you're not getting the answers you seek so rather than accepting the collective intelligence that exists here you put down the answers.  

Here's the silent deal that comes with asking a question.  You ask something, we'll tell you the truth as well as we know it.  If we tell you the truth and you still don't like it, at that point it is no longer our problem.  

It's not too late to turn the dialogue around, where do you want to go from here?

[bismuth-210]

i've been obsessively following the unfolding events in japan since 3/11, here on this public message board and other message boards. sadly the MSM doesn't want to cover this story.

before i only had a passing interest in nuclear power (i live in NYC so i've been following IP, Vermont Yankee and am old enough to remember shorehaven).  it's pretty darn cool, splitting atoms that is.  and i admire the macho-ness of nuke workers.  you guys are like fireman and navy pilots.  but, not every one can fly (and land) off of aircraft carriers or get launched into space.  

Yet, i find it astonishing that you folks continue to downplay obfuscate the unfolding events.  Yes, it is super technical and complex.

Please don't tell me about the earthquake and tsunami victims or that coal is indeed very bad. stick to the subject at hand, which is the 6 nuclear reactors and their SFPs.

Nothing ever invented by man is as deadly as nuclear power and their offspring nuclear weapons.  We are still learning the effects of radiation and increasingly experts (that is medical doctors, not physicists) are learning that even low levels of radiation are not safe.  in fact there is no safe level of radiation.

Plutone is asking some very good questions, a direct answer would be appreciated by this reader as well.  

just so you guys know, i am a in xray school (almost all medical nuclear medicine technologist are xray certified techs and this is a field that i am strongly considering training in), so i know a little bit about ionizing radiation.  Go ahead jump down my throat. call me a tree hugger.  after all, this is a public internet message board.
  



 

[HydroDave63]

before i only had a passing interest in nuclear power (i live in NYC so i've been following IP, Vermont Yankee and am old enough to remember shorehaven).  

That must have been a long time ago, and inspired the naming of "Shoreham" years later  

Nothing ever invented by man is as deadly as nuclear power and their offspring nuclear weapons.

Actually, cigarettes, communism, Islam and fried chicken have caused a LOT more premature deaths than Hiroshima, Nagasaki, and nuclear plant accidents combined. Further debate for just 11 cents a day in GoldMember^TM Forum !

just so you guys know, i am a in xray school (almost all medical nuclear medicine technologist are xray certified techs and this is a field that i am strongly considering training in), so i know a little bit about ionizing radiation.  Go ahead jump down my throat. call me a tree hugger.  after all, this is a public internet message board.

I find it astonishing that you want to obfuscate the terrible effects of manmade X-rays with some smoke and mirrors about therapeutic uses....after all, even Henri Roentgen's wife was killed by cancer caused by X-rays. in fact there is no safe level of X-rays    When will the carnage end?

[RDTroja]

i've been obsessively following the unfolding events in japan since 3/11, here on this public message board and other message boards. sadly the MSM doesn't want to cover this story.

before i only had a passing interest in nuclear power (i live in NYC so i've been following IP, Vermont Yankee and am old enough to remember shorehaven).  it's pretty darn cool, splitting atoms that is.  and i admire the macho-ness of nuke workers.  you guys are like fireman and navy pilots.  but, not every one can fly (and land) off of aircraft carriers or get launched into space.  

Yet, i find it astonishing that you folks continue to downplay obfuscate the unfolding events.  Yes, it is super technical and complex.

Please don't tell me about the earthquake and tsunami victims or that coal is indeed very bad. stick to the subject at hand, which is the 6 nuclear reactors and their SFPs.

Nothing ever invented by man is as deadly as nuclear power and their offspring nuclear weapons.  We are still learning the effects of radiation and increasingly experts (that is medical doctors, not physicists) are learning that even low levels of radiation are not safe.  in fact there is no safe level of radiation.

Plutone is asking some very good questions, a direct answer would be appreciated by this reader as well.  

just so you guys know, i am a in xray school (almost all medical nuclear medicine technologist are xray certified techs and this is a field that i am strongly considering training in), so i know a little bit about ionizing radiation.  Go ahead jump down my throat. call me a tree hugger.  after all, this is a public internet message board.
  



 

Sorry, but that is just plain wrong on two levels.

First, everything is deadly. Breathing is deadly. Water is deadly. In fact, water is responsible for far more deaths each month than all the deaths nuclear power has caused in its history. Saying nothing invented by man is more deadly than nuclear power shows so a lot of ignorance. There are substances that man has invented that would require less than a teaspoonful to kill every human on the planet. Making unsubstantiated (and just plain false) claims like that puts the rest of your post into the 'who cares' category, but it gets worse.

Nuclear power did not beget nuclear bombs. Calling bombs the offspring of nuclear power shows even more ignorance. Like most other inventions, the military found a use for nuclear reactions first. If anything you could call the power plants the offspring of the bomb, but even that is such a stretch as to be laughable.

On top of all that, you need to learn some things about risk. Everything you do involves risks. Getting out of bed in the morning involves risks. Not getting up involves risks, too. Nothing in the world is pure good or pure evil. The only thing we can hope to do to make decisions for ourselves is to evaluate risk vs. reward and make choices about what risks we are willing to take to get what we want. Having nuclear power plants involves risks. Not having nuclear plants involves risks, too. In fact, even with the Japanese accident and the Chernobyl accident and the TMI accident, nuclear power plants have effectively REDUCED the amount of radioactive materials released into the environment over the time period the have been in use. Why? Because they have replaced a more significant source. Sorry you don't want to hear it, but there it is. Coal plants release more radioactive materials into the environment than nuclear plants, by orders of magnitude. You can't have a discussion about risk without including relative risk and risk/reward... it just makes no sense.

Dr. Bernard Cohen Professor Emeritus of Physics, at the University of Pittsburgh published a paper in the 1980s where he calculated that if we replaced all coal plants with nuclear plants and completely meted one down EVERY YEAR we would still have a net reduction in radioactive materials released to the environment. We have a long way to go before we get to that level.

Dr. Cohen would also disagree about the 'no level is safe' argument, but that is another matter.

I am sure you are very impressed with your credentials (in 'x-ray school,' whatever that is) but I think you are right in saying you know a little about it. There are a lot of people on this site that know much more than a little about it. I have taught radiation protection, including biological effects, for years and there are a lot of folks here that know far more than I do. The simple fact of the matter is that you really don't know what you are talking about.

Another point of disagreement is that Plutone is asking good questions. Good questions do not have built-in bias. Good questions do not guide the answer toward the outcome that the poser (yes, that has two meanings there) is looking for. Good questions are open to discussion and are not phrased to start arguments or put the respondent on the defensive. The questions he asked were negative, leading and indicated that he already knew what answer he was going to get and was ready to argue the point.

Not good questions, not good science, not good facts. Not worthy of a serious answer until those obstacle can be overcome.

[bismuth-210]

maybe you guys need a refresher course !

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4prqDn7QS8I

it's all ball bearings nowadays .

stick to the subject fellas.  not coal.  nook power.

i never said there was a safe level of any ionizing radiation.

the amount of kool aid drinking is truly spectacular.  of course i would expect nothing less from folks that get paid by nuclear power plants.

nobody pays me for my views.

[roadhp]

Yet, i find it astonishing that you folks continue to downplay obfuscate the unfolding events.  Yes, it is super technical and complex.

Please don't tell me about the earthquake and tsunami victims or that coal is indeed very bad. stick to the subject at hand, which is the 6 nuclear reactors and their SFPs.

Nothing ever invented by man is as deadly as nuclear power and their offspring nuclear weapons.  We are still learning the effects of radiation and increasingly experts (that is medical doctors, not physicists) are learning that even low levels of radiation are not safe.  in fact there is no safe level of radiation.

Plutone is asking some very good questions, a direct answer would be appreciated by this reader as well.  

just so you guys know, i am a in xray school (almost all medical nuclear medicine technologist are xray certified techs and this is a field that i am strongly considering training in), so i know a little bit about ionizing radiation.  Go ahead jump down my throat. call me a tree hugger.  after all, this is a public internet message board.

It is hard to talk about nuclear power and just compare it to nuclear power (BTW, nuclear power is the offshoot of nuclear weapons).  Yes, it is sometimes talking about apples and oranges, but to continue the metaphor, not talking about other types of incidents is like saying that an apple isn't a fruit.  To continue the statment, there are things just as dangerous as nuclear power and the possible accidents that go hand in hand, and again you have to include them or the discussion is just about nuclear power and is moot.  Take for example chemical plants.  Are they safer than nuclear power plants?  Tell that to the people in Bhopal, India.  

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bhopal_disaster

An yet there are chemical plants in every major city in the US and the rest of the industrialized world.  Yes, in our world there is no safe level of radiation, which is why we practice ALARA, As Low As Rasonably Achievable.  But as we said when I was in the Navy, the risks are low "when compared to risks normally accepted in everyday life".  As you will, or have learned in X-ray school, I hope, radiation is all around us, even inside us, at levels that are measurable.  The amount of radiation I get working the outages is in most years less than that of a commercial airline pilot or a person living in Denver, which BTW I have lived there.  Do I have a fear of cancer,  No, but a healthy respect of the risks of developing cancer from radiation just like every other risk of cancer such as eating sacharin (sp) or sunbathing, which I don't do.

As far as the questions go, the accident is still an accident and will have to be controlled just like any other accident, with deliberation.  The units not in danger will probably be restarted just from an economic and demand point of view, but only after upgrades to ensure an accident of this magnitude (earthquake and tsunami) will be controlled.  To not start them up again will be catastrophic for the regional community, since replacing the 4 damaged units will take some time, and Japan doesn't have the ability to import more oil or natural gas for a new fossil plant, or the 10-15 it would take to recover the capacity of those nuclear power plants.

[Radwasted]

maybe you guys need a refresher course !

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4prqDn7QS8I

it's all ball bearings nowadays .

stick to the subject fellas.  not coal.  nook power.

i never said there was a safe level of any ionizing radiation.

the amount of kool aid drinking is truly spectacular.  of course i would expect nothing less from folks that get paid by nuclear power plants.

nobody pays me for my views.

     


Well the folks here that get paid by nuclear power plants would without hesitation risk their lives to protect you or any other citizen of this country from nuclear disaster.

[RDTroja]

maybe you guys need a refresher course !

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4prqDn7QS8I

it's all ball bearings nowadays .

stick to the subject fellas.  not coal.  nook power.

i never said there was a safe level of any ionizing radiation.

the amount of kool aid drinking is truly spectacular.  of course i would expect nothing less from folks that get paid by nuclear power plants.

nobody pays me for my views.

Nobody pays me for mine, either. If they shut all of the nuclear plants down tomorrow, I would do just fine. I would probably make more than I am now and it would carry me well into retirement, so why would I say anything I didn't believe? It would make more sense for me to bad mouth nukes than to tell the truth. But thanks for the slam, we all appreciate it. You come in here and insult our integrity and expect us to fall in line behind your ignorance? Try again.

We don't need any refresher courses you have to offer, particularly from someone with no experience and less knowledge. If you can't get the idea that the only way to assess risk is by comparison, then you you are the one in need of an education. You are only part right when you say this is about nuclear power. It is about a lot more than that. Are nukes 100% safe. Hell no. Nothing is. Is anyone going to die because of what is going on in Fukushima? NOBODY KNOWS THAT YET. Can we get any clearer on that? All we can do is make guesses based on information gained from what we do know about radiation and biological effects. The big problem with that is there is no way to construct any kind of legitimate study on low level effects, since there is no such thing as 'none.' There is no base line data. If you knew anything about experimental design you would understand this. Nobody has ever, or probably will ever, be able to come to any valid scientific answer to the 'How much is dangerous and how dangerous is it at low levels' questions. There is no way to set up the test because there is no control group.

The only thing we can do is take the risks that are reasonable. In order to do that, we need to compare. That is all there is to it. If you don't get it, you never will. But keep up that education you claim to be getting. Someday it may sink in. Nukes are safer than our alternatives for providing Baseload generation. Living at the gate of a nuclear plant is safer than living within 100 miles of a coal burner. Or a chemical plant. Or on the ocean, in the mountains, near any mine or landfill, or even near the Mississippi River. It is safer than driving a car, smoking, drinking alcohol (or even water, for that matter.) Yes the discussion is about nuclear power, but if the discussion was about cars at the beginning of the 20th century and you couldn't talk about horses, the conversation would be useless. If you talk about the stupidity of one political party and you can't put it in the context of the other party's policy the conversation goes nowhere and is simply an exercise in bashing the opponent without providing an alternative... also useless or worse. If you want to talk about how bad something is you have to answer the question 'Compared to what?' or its just verbal masturbation.

Maybe that is what you are after.

If you don't understand, then just go ahead and make a fool out of yourself and ask the same question again. Someone else will try to explain and you still won't get it. Or, maybe you will get tired of being a Troll and just give up. But I doubt that.

BTW, that kool ade drinking cliche is about as last-century as it gets. Can't anybody come up with something original?

[RealityCheck]

Well, I haven't visited this forum in awhile and it's fun to see that I was able to stir up large Olympic sized bowls of crap with one arm tied behind my back.

I am neither pro-nuke or anti-nuke. I am as amused by baby-nukes who suffer from LOKA's (Loss of Knowledge Accidents) as I am by the Anti-nuke advocates who don't know the difference between a barn and a shed (I am sure most of you would also have trouble differentiating between a barn and a shed, but for the intellectually curious think "thermal neutron absorption cross-section").

A little edification for those wanting me to hold your beer.... "A Black Swan Event has nothing to do with the movie of the same title".  To think that we can keep future Black Swan Events from occurring simply as a function of learning from previous events is the height of intellectual arrogance.  And yes, there is a direct correlation between knowledge and arrogance. I am admittedly the poster child for this corollary.

I encourage you all to actually read something for the purpose of insight rather than wasting too much of your valuable time engaging in trivial pursuit with a nuclear bent. Learn how the highly improbable events that are increasingly occurring in our increasingly complex world will continue to change the course of history and the only thing we can actually do is sit back and watch. Learn to think outside the little nuclear box that we have carefully constructed in a vain attempt to assure the world that we know what we are doing.

By the way, the IP looks like NYC...I will come back in a week or two to ensure the pot was sufficiently stirred.  I hope that at least one of you grows a brain cell between now and then.