Pointed questions for nuclear enthusiasts and careerists

[plutone]

I get that this site is for nuclear enthusiasts and careerists but I'm still going to ask a few pointed questions:

1) How do y'all feel about the workers role as "jumper", also known as "liquidator" in the case of serious accidents? I understand they burned thru about 700,000 of them during the Chernobyl mitigation efforts. How many will it take to clear the radioactive rubble from 3 reactor meltdowns (with exploded buildings) and 5 spent fuel pools? What will be the cumulative dose and DNA damage to those of reproductive age?

2) Should it have been foreseen that building 6 reactors within a few feet of each other on a site with a history of major seismic activity might lead to future problems? That if one reactor explodes it will now be difficult to deal with the rest? That, even if the reactors survive the immediate quake, guess what causes tsunamis?

3) Is it reasonable for the world to depend on an energy source that has regular intermittant accidents that spread radioactive particles worldwide? Should we trust the nuclear industry that says it won't happen here, again?

4) How much do nuclear workers understand about the crucial difference between external and internal radiation dose? Do they realize that there has been a long running effort to confuse this issue and minimize consequential health effects by the industry and it's promoters?

[Rennhack]

I get that this site is for nuclear enthusiasts and careerists but I'm still going to ask a few pointed questions:

1) How do y'all feel about the workers role as "jumper", also known as "liquidator" in the case of serious accidents? I understand they burned thru about 700,000 of them during the Chernobyl mitigation efforts. How many will it take to clear the radioactive rubble from 3 reactor meltdowns (with exploded buildings) and 5 spent fuel pools? What will be the cumulative dose and DNA damage to those of reproductive age?

2) Should it have been foreseen that building 6 reactors within a few feet of each other on a site with a history of major seismic activity might lead to future problems? That if one reactor explodes it will now be difficult to deal with the rest? That, even if the reactors survive the immediate quake, guess what causes tsunamis?

3) Is it reasonable for the world to depend on an energy source that has regular intermittant accidents that spread radioactive particles worldwide? Should we trust the nuclear industry that says it won't happen here, again?

4) How much do nuclear workers understand about the crucial difference between external and internal radiation dose? Do they realize that there has been a long running effort to confuse this issue and minimize consequential health effects by the industry and it's promoters?

So that's what a Troll looks like.

[Pman52]

4) How much do nuclear workers understand about the crucial difference between external and internal radiation dose? Do they realize that there has been a long running effort to confuse this issue and minimize consequential health effects by the industry and it's promoters?

With roughly half the site being from the HP field of various positions and experience I would imagine this has been covered a few times with them....

3) Is it reasonable for the world to depend on an energy source that has regular intermittant accidents that spread radioactive particles worldwide? Should we trust the nuclear industry that says it won't happen here, again?

[Smart People]

4) How much do nuclear workers understand about the crucial difference between external and internal radiation dose? Do they realize that there has been a long running effort to confuse this issue and minimize consequential health effects by the industry and it's promoters?

Perhaps you can look up the 10CFR20 regulation that all of us nukeworkers are trained to and HPs are hired to enforce.

There is no confusion.

[namlive]

I get that this site is for nuclear enthusiasts and careerists but I'm still going to ask a few pointed questions:
1)How do y'all feel about the workers role as "jumper", also known as "liquidator" in the case of serious accidents? I understand they burned thru about 700,000 of them during the Chernobyl mitigation efforts. How many will it take to clear the radioactive rubble from 3 reactor meltdowns (with exploded buildings) and 5 spent fuel pools? What will be the cumulative dose and DNA damage to those of reproductive age?
2) Should it have been foreseen that building 6 reactors within a few feet of each other on a site with a history of major seismic activity might lead to future problems? That if one reactor explodes it will now be difficult to deal with the rest? That, even if the reactors survive the immediate quake, guess what causes tsunamis?
3) Is it reasonable for the world to depend on an energy source that has regular intermittant accidents that spread radioactive particles worldwide? Should we trust the nuclear industry that says it won't happen here, again?
4) How much do nuclear workers understand about the crucial difference between external and internal radiation dose? Do they realize that there has been a long running effort to confuse this issue and minimize consequential health effects by the industry and it's promoters?

1. These are very good and serious questions, some of which I have raised myself.  The workers, by law will be limited to 25 REM/year. In Japan, I believe that is a floating year. The same jumpers will be used over and over again. We used jumpers in this country for steam generator work.  The BIER model claims there will be 1 cancer death for every 10,000 person REM. So if 1,000 jumpers make 2 dives of 25 REM each or 50 Rem, that would be a total of 50,000 Rem, or 5 cancer deaths. So if 700,000 jumpers worked 2 years, that would be 3,500 cancer deaths for clean up.
2. I agree they are built too close. But they are very safe for the accidents they planned for. TMI, Chernobyl, and Fukishima were all accidents we were assured would never happen. When I was at David-Besse, I found out they built the plant in a 100 year flood zone. I scratched my head. They deliberately built a plant in an area that doesn't stay above water all the time. Why? They got a good deal on the land. I work in the industry, but I won't defend its stupidity.
3. You talk as if spewing radioactive particles across the globe is a bad thing as if this is the only planet we can live on.
4. Let's be honest on this one. The nuclear industry doesn't confuse internal and external dose any more, they consider it all the same. In fact they preach hormesis, i.e that a little dose is healthy for you. I personally don't trust any industry that comes out and claims that their product is "natural." Nor does the industry recognize that chronic dose can destroy a cell with less dose than an acute dose because the cell doesn't have the time to recover without getting zapped again. This there is a constant flow of OH ions to the cell membrane which destroys it. In an acute dose, the cell forms more OH ions, but they can't all get to the cell membrane. They can recombine before they do damage. By making internal and external dose all the same, the industry saves tons of money in outage costs. It is a scam and most of us who have been around long enough know it is a scam.  But the nuclear industry has its controlling body, the NRC in the palm of its hand. Now the DOE is a different story. Most workers don't like that fact that they can take something home with them. It is my job to make fun of them so they will.

[OldHP]

1. These are very good and serious questions, some of which I have raised myself.  The workers, by law will be limited to 25 REM/year.
4. Let's be honest on this one. The nuclear industry doesn't confuse internal and external dose any more, they consider it all the same. In fact they preach hormesis, i.e that a little dose is healthy for you.  

 

I think it is time for you to go back through "a good rad worker training program", assuming you have ever had any training.  Your grasp of the basics is not self evident!

[Smart People]

4. Let's be honest on this one. The nuclear industry doesn't confuse internal and external dose any more, they consider it all the same. In fact they preach hormesis, i.e that a little dose is healthy for you. I personally don't trust any industry that comes out and claims that their product is "natural." Nor does the industry recognize that chronic dose can destroy a cell with less dose than an acute dose because the cell doesn't have the time to recover without getting zapped again. This there is a constant flow of OH ions to the cell membrane which destroys it. In an acute dose, the cell forms more OH ions, but they can't all get to the cell membrane. They can recombine before they do damage. By making internal and external dose all the same, the industry saves tons of money in outage costs. It is a scam and most of us who have been around long enough know it is a scam.  But the nuclear industry has its controlling body, the NRC in the palm of its hand. Now the DOE is a different story. Most workers don't like that fact that they can take something home with them. It is my job to make fun of them so they will.

although there have been studies showing hormesis to be real. this is not a philosophy of the nuclear business. hormesis is only mentioned in some training. the nuclear business subscribes to no threshold limit i.e. any dose is bad dose.

that is why ALARA (As Low As Reasonably Achievable) is so strongly emphasized. having been an ALARA planner, I can tell you it is taken very seriously.

Yes, Dose is dose. internal dose is treated the same as external dose but the damage is weighted over a 50 year average and that total dose is assigned to you now. based on isotopic derived air concentrations (DAC).


10CFR20 look it up.

[plutone]

Re: A few pointed questions.

Believe it or not these are serious questions, despite my misgivings I have no desire to exaggerate the dangers of nuclear power.

I write about this subject and want to be as accurate as possible; I am sincerely interested in the point of view of those who are closer to the actual scene than I am.

So I appreciate the serious answers, but the name calling and obfuscations give me less confidence in the collective wisdom here.

Perhaps it would be illuminating to conduct an opinion poll:

1) How many think that the nuclear industry has been candid with the public about the risks of nuclear power plants and the effects of radiation exposure?

2) How many think that building plants a few feet apart on the same site is a good policy?

3) How many think it is OK to employ naive liquidators as long as they are not forced into it (except by economic necessity)?

more to follow

[HydroDave63]

I write about this subject and want to be as accurate as possible; I am sincerely interested in the point of view of those who are closer to the actual scene than I am.

Do you have rights for commercial reproduction of the posts? Will you use full attribution, or slice and dice? yeah, thought so.

If you want to poll people and ignore answers already given to reach your own conclusions ala "Generation Kill Nuke", then why not fly over to Tokyo, imbed with a cleanup team and find out for yourself?

[roadhp]

Re: A few pointed questions.

Believe it or not these are serious questions, despite my misgivings I have no desire to exaggerate the dangers of nuclear power.

I write about this subject and want to be as accurate as possible; I am sincerely interested in the point of view of those who are closer to the actual scene than I am.

So I appreciate the serious answers, but the name calling and obfuscations give me less confidence in the collective wisdom here.

Perhaps it would be illuminating to conduct an opinion poll:

1) How many think that the nuclear industry has been candid with the public about the risks of nuclear power plants and the effects of radiation exposure?

2) How many think that building plants a few feet apart on the same site is a good policy?

3) How many think it is OK to employ naive liquidators as long as they are not forced into it (except by economic necessity)?

more to follow

1.  The nuclear industry has been as up front as they can with the public as far as I am concerned.  Some details are just too specific for the general public to understand or comprehend.  If you look at the iaea website or nei, you can get a more detailed picture of the plant status if you can understand it.  Question back at you:  How many people who write about this or report this are looking at making headlines and sensationalism instead of reporting facts?

2.  Building plants a few feet away makes economic sense.  As far as the common sense, as has been mentioned before, if you have a great deal of talent in one place, great things can be acheived.  The industry has plants built together so they can share resources during a shutdown or even an emergency.

3.  So far at Fukushima, the "Liquidators" have been the same people you are maligning for keeping the public in the dark and forcing others to get dose.  They have been getting the dose to save their plant from further harm and protect the very people that you say they are harming.  Unlike Chernobyl, they are all volunteers who know very well the risks they are getting into, yet do it anyway because the risks of not doing it outweigh their personal risk.

The question that you didn't ask is the most important one:  Why nuclear power instead of all of the other options?  For that one, you will need to read alot more in this and other streams with an open mind, but my take on it is nuclear power is a good option compared to wind which doesn't blow all the time, sun which doesn't shine all the time, hydro which has almost been completely used, and fossil which does much more harm to the environment than a thousand Fukushimas

[Smart People]

Re: A few pointed questions.
I write about this subject and want to be as accurate as possible; I am sincerely interested in the point of view of those who are closer to the actual scene than I am.

Are you a columnist or blogger? if so, let us know who you are so we can get a better idea of where you are coming from. and we can debate in earnest.

[Cherenkov]

Re: A few pointed questions.

Believe it or not these are serious questions, despite my misgivings I have no desire to exaggerate the dangers of nuclear power.

I write about this subject and want to be as accurate as possible; I am sincerely interested in the point of view of those who are closer to the actual scene than I am.

So I appreciate the serious answers, but the name calling and obfuscations give me less confidence in the collective wisdom here.

Perhaps it would be illuminating to conduct an opinion poll:

1) How many think that the nuclear industry has been candid with the public about the risks of nuclear power plants and the effects of radiation exposure?

2) How many think that building plants a few feet apart on the same site is a good policy?

3) How many think it is OK to employ naive liquidators as long as they are not forced into it (except by economic necessity)?

more to follow

Sounds like gonzo journalism to me.

-C

[Dave Warren]

Are you a columnist or blogger? if so, let us know who you are so we can get a better idea of where you are coming from. and we can debate in earnest.

That really isn't fair either. There are many that hide behind the face of an imaginary name here. By asking them to reveal who they are, we break the code that Rennhack has allowed others to live by for quite some time.

If we think about inundating this anonymous person with knowledge and subject matter expertise, they will get a better feel for the way we operate. You can catch more bees with honey than you can vinegar. Confucius say it is easier to persuade people if you use polite arguments and flattery than if you are confrontational.

Politics notwithstanding, of course.....

[RAD-GHOST]

First the questioner has to respect your knowledge as truthfully delivered information and not propaganda,...

From the Human Nature Perspective, that will work only if you AGREE with them........

Got to go, Feeding Time....RG!

[Dave Warren]

1) How many think that the nuclear industry has been candid with the public about the risks of nuclear power plants and the effects of radiation exposure?

Although radiation may cause cancers at high doses and high dose rates, currently there are no data to establish unequivocally the occurrence of cancer following exposure to low doses and dose rates – below about 10,000 mrem (100 mSv). Those people living in areas having high levels of background radiation – above 1,000 mrem (10 mSv) per year – such as Denver, Colorado, have shown no adverse biological effects.

Even so, the radiation protection community conservatively assumes that any amount of radiation may pose some risk for causing cancer and hereditary effect, and that the risk is higher for higher radiation exposures. A linear, no-threshold (LNT) dose response relationship is used to describe the relationship between radiation dose and the occurrence of cancer. This dose-response hypothesis suggests that any increase in dose, no matter how small, results in an incremental increase in risk. The LNT hypothesis is accepted by the NRC as a conservative model for determining radiation dose standards, recognizing that the model may over estimate radiation risk.

Found at: http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/doc-collections/fact-sheets/bio-effects-radiation.html

[Smart People]

That really isn't fair either. There are many that hide behind the face of an imaginary name here. By asking them to reveal who they are, we break the code that Rennhack has allowed others to live by for quite some time.

If we think about inundating this anonymous person with knowledge and subject matter expertise, they will get a better feel for the way we operate. You can catch more bees with honey than you can vinegar. Confucius say it is easier to persuade people if you use polite arguments and flattery than if you are confrontational.

Politics notwithstanding, of course.....

Me? confrontational? you so funny!

The intent was not to be confrontational. the poster put forth that they regularly wrote about this subject. I was curious if they did this in an "official" capacity and was curious of where they were coming from.

they had already asked some pointed questions that not only upset several people but sounded like anti-nuke sentiments. Not that there is anything wrong with that.

I only asked out of curiosity and a wish to understand their position.

of course they can explain their position without giving their name.

so Dave Warren (if that is your real name) thanks for the coaching.

[jarod1977]

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!!

[Smart People]

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!!

It is. you should try it!!

[Cherenkov]

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!!

It is, but your jealousy is ugly.

-C

[Dave Warren]

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!!

I ran out of biscuits a long time ago, to sop up all this gravy.
The difference is, most of us have paid our dues.
I started in the 80's and alot of these guys started in the 70's when there were fewer regulations.

Quite honestly Jarod, you have the luxury of not knowing what we know about this industry.
If we were new in this gig, yeah we might be out busting our humps to make a buck.
But we are seasoned veterans and have the scars to prove it and we have earned the seat which resides under our ass.

So, you are correct in your assessment of gravy being our job description, but not any old fool could sit here and do what we do, day in and day out.

[nukecheese]

Hey Dave all those mR's at Perry have fried your brain.

Oh by the way do you want a little cheese with that whine.

You're cool.

[RealityCheck]

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.

[Cycoticpenguin]

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.

Did Greenpeace send you here? Or Mothers for Peace?  You clearly have no idea what you are talking about, and Id suggest you do some research yourself. You're opening a huge can of worms here.... Your "naivete" is clearly evident. Why do you bother wasting yours, and whats ultimately worse, my time discussing things you know nothing about?

[MacGyver]

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.

Which one:
1a. Black Swan Theory or 1b. Theory of Black Swan Events - {"rara avis in terris nigroque simillima cygno"}
2. black swan problem

And are you sure that is a good analogy?  I mean we do have the b.5.b (re: highly unlikely and/or impossible scenarios) for operators.  Therefore, it would not be "a rare bird in the lands, and very like a black swan."

As for being banned, well that would mean you deserved it.  As for your silly notions of our industry having its head in the sand, well of course that will not get you banned.  Just labeled a "troll" and result in your getting bashed (because you seem to deserve it) or ignored.

Oh one other thing.  Your vanity is showing.

[Smart People]

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."

one reactor in the Ukraine = level 7
four reactors combined in Japan = level 7

Yep... we're doomed

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 mean after two whole contrary posts you expect to be banned? Would that justify your existence?

Black Swan Event: first time I've heard of it, looked it up. Thanks!!

[RealityCheck]

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

[Dave Warren]

No, not a touchy subject. We all tend to be sarcastic and kid with each other.

I take no offense from your posts. Don't confuse my cutting remarks being a direct result of something you said.

I expect you to speak your mind.

[Cherenkov]

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

If your expectations are so low, why stay?

-C

[Cycoticpenguin]

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

[Smart People]

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

You throw out nonsense and expect nonsense in return? How wise thou art.

[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.

[Pman52]

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 !

https://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 !

https://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 !

https://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.

[namlive]

Yes, nuclear power is safer than the earth crashing into the sun and produces far less radiation. But we can't control natural disasters, but we can control nuclear power. So all we have to do is to find something in nature that is worse, such as an earthquake or tsunami and that will justify cyanide and arsenic in our drinking water because it is natural. Now Roger, I know you are a good stewart of the nuclear industry, but you look really bad in a cheerleader outfit.

[bismuth-210]

Good morning:

ok, it seems that you guys cleared up my thinking.  thanks to the ministry of re-education and ministry of truth.

i got it now, due to my small IQ, I will never be able to comprehend and asses the risks of nuclear power generation, so I will just leave that to the politicians and the business leaders.  they have our best interests and safety at heart.

[drayer54]

Good morning:ok, it seems that you guys cleared up my thinking.  thanks to the ministry of re-education and ministry of truth.i got it now, due to my small IQ, I will never be able to comprehend and asses the risks of nuclear power generation, so I will just leave that to the politicians and the business leaders.  they have our best interests and safety at heart.

He gave a well worded response that answered your ignorant statement. Nobody said that you aren't capable of understanding the issue, but most in the general public are not knowledgeable of this topic. I don't think any answer would have worked for you because your mind is made up.
The Mothers For Peace group might let you spread the ignorance with them and are far more likely to entertain your beliefs. Maybe they will let you preach your objective.

You were right about one thing though.....

[Marlin]

ok, it seems that you guys cleared up my thinking.  thanks to the ministry of re-education and ministry of truth.

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.

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

All the same psuedo intellectual???  

[hamsamich]

"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."

Nuclear Power was not invented by man.  Natural nuclear reactors operated all over the world billions of years ago.  Look it up.  And natural background radioactivity is here now and will always be here.  So if there is truly no safe level of radiation how can we inhabit this planet?

If you have a beef with nuclear power put up some kind of argument that isn't BS.  There is plenty of stuff out there that isn't BS that is wrong with nuclear power.  The reason you are getting so much backlash here isn't because you attacked nuclear power, it is because no one respects your posts because they are flatout wrong.  Get your facts straight on the subject before you post on a board comprised of people that have been working in this business for many years.  If not, stop cluttering up this board with crap.

[RAD-GHOST]

I sure hope these individuals don't sign up for a Gold Membership to see that we really say about them......

Maybe we should institute a Fitness for Stupidiy Program.....


RG!  

[Brett LaVigne]

maybe you guys need a refresher course !

https://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.

This is exactally the BS responses I was getting after trying to help non-nuke types understand what to be worried about and what not to be worried about. Paid to lie for the industry...unreal!

Many of us on here are Rad Protection types. We aren't paid to lie for the industry, we are paid to keep the industry honest and safe. If you don't like the answers you are getting from industry experts, tough. You are getting the truth based on what we know about the science. If it isn't as gloomy as you would like it to be, go watch CNN, they will be happy to scare the crap out of you some more with misinformation. CNN, FOX and the other mainstream outlets are gonna be so pissed when nobody in Tokyo dies from this accident! In fact, I don't see near the coverage on CNN that was going on a couple of weeks ago. I guess they are already having to switch to other news since this news isn't creating mass graves of people who died from ARS like they thought it would.

If someone is saying that nuclear power is the most dangerous...I think the word was actually deadly...way to make power (Paraphrased, read that in one of the posts, not sure the author and don't really care), then we must talk about the other ways of making power and compare them with the subject at hand, nukes. Currently, reliable power production comes with a level of risk. When all of the info is looked at objectively, there are no other conclusions that can be reached other than nuclear being just as safe (much safer actually) than fossil generation. When you look at things like acid rain, radioactive releases from fossil plants, mining accidents, oil rig explosions, huge oil spills etc., nuclear power doesn't hold a candle. Even considering Chernobyl and now Fukushima, on a global scale nothing has killed more people and screwed the environment like using fossil fuels to make power. To me, they don't even deserve to be in the same conversation when talking about risk. But there is this "magical" thing with nuclear power that the general public doesn't understand and for some reason, they generally don't want to understand. People are driven by fear and even if that fear should be put to rest with scientifically based reason and historical data from past accidents, it seems to do nothing to change any minds.

So if you don't like the answers, then just keep believing that nuclear is ultra evil and leave those of us that know the difference alone. It becomes a giant waste of our time to try to convince otherwise. I am a ANSI qualified Rad Protection Supervisor with over 21 years in the industry. I take the responsibility of my job very seriously like the others in my field. To be accused as a paid liar for the industry is highly offensive. We are exactally the opposite of what you imply and the remarks are shamefull. When you come into a conversation with questions, but already have your mind made up on what the answers should be and are unwilling to consider the answers from the experts...then there is just no help for you. Why even participate in the conversation?
Good luck...I will continue to sleep soundly, knowing that what I do for a living helps protect even the lowest denominators of the public from the dangers of ionizing radiation.

[plutone]

Some pretty wild statements being made here on both sides of the discussion, IMO.

Yes, I have a point of view like everyone else, it is derived from studying the issue and listening to both sides. My questions are serious and are asked mainly because I am interested in the serious answers.

The poster who reminded us that at least 10,000 people have already died from non-nuclear causes brings a valuable perspective.

Yet there are studies now being released that suggest there will be 200,000 long term fatalities from early cancer onset due to this accident. This is based on the radiation spilled so far and the experiences at Chernobyl.

[Brett LaVigne]

Some pretty wild statements being made here on both sides of the discussion, IMO.

"IMO", that is the problem! You have a deeply rooted opinion on the matter with no real foundation. You dismiss the opinions of the folks that have a very deep understanding of radiological issues. I think that is what is making the group smite the heck out of you for your posts. You keep saying that you haven't got serious answers to your questions. I think you haven't got answers that line up with your pre-determined opinions...those are two different things. Your questions have been answered by people who live and breath within the industry. When was the last time you have seen actual Plutonium, Americium, Caesium, Strontium? Many of us handle these things every day and have built careers on knowing how to protect people from them...But then again, what we say holds no water...sigh...You should just direct your questions to Anderson Cooper, I think he has the answers you look for.

[drayer54]

Some pretty wild statements being made here on both sides of the discussion, IMO.

Yes, I have a point of view like everyone else, it is derived from studying the issue and listening to both sides. My questions are serious and are asked mainly because I am interested in the serious answers.

The poster who reminded us that at least 10,000 people have already died from non-nuclear causes brings a valuable perspective.

Yet there are studies now being released that suggest there will be 200,000 long term fatalities from early cancer onset due to this accident. This is based on the radiation spilled so far and the experiences at Chernobyl.

Here on NW, when we reference a study to make our point, we provide a link or name and source to it.  

IMO, you already have your mind made up and enjoy preaching to people who don't seem to be too interested in what you are selling....

[roadhp]

Yet there are studies now being released that suggest there will be 200,000 long term fatalities from early cancer onset due to this accident. This is based on the radiation spilled so far and the experiences at Chernobyl.

The only references I have seen online to studies have quoted Greenpeace who quoted another scientist who quoted still other unnamed scientists who said this, but it is interesting that this number, "200,000", is the same number they gave to the "estimated" (but never proven in any shape or form) deaths from radiation from Chernobyl.

[RDTroja]

Yes, nuclear power is safer than the earth crashing into the sun and produces far less radiation. But we can't control natural disasters, but we can control nuclear power. So all we have to do is to find something in nature that is worse, such as an earthquake or tsunami and that will justify cyanide and arsenic in our drinking water because it is natural. Now Roger, I know you are a good stewart of the nuclear industry, but you look really bad in a cheerleader outfit.

You are a troll, but at least you know you are a troll and you like being a troll. Had I talked about earthquakes, tsunamis or other natural disasters in the wake of Chernobyl, you would have a point. Now the only point you have is covered by your hat. The relevance of tsunamis and earthquakes to this disaster is, I hope, clear even to you. But, I do thank you for supporting my point. A good deal of the cyanide and arsenic in our drinking water comes from the use of coal to generate electricity, and no it is not good and there are plenty of other 'natural' things that aren't. I expected just slightly better of you than to use DaveWarren tactics to try to make your weak points look stronger.  I also gave you a little more literacy credit than I should have. I am not a 'stewart' of anything... I don't even have any Scottish blood in me (it's Irish.) If you want to make me a 'steward' of nuclear power, in the truest sense you are correct. I do my best to try to manage my part of the nuclear world. It is, after all, what I am paid to do.

You did get one point correct. I would look terrible in a cheerleader outfit. Almost as bad as you looked trying to be a Goth.

[Marlin]

A good deal of the cyanide and arsenic in our drinking water comes from the use of coal to generate electricity, and no it is not good and there are plenty of other 'natural' things that aren't.

Don't forget mercury and the rest of the heavy metals in ocean fish.

I still support fossil fuels and the EPA. It's easy to forget the soupy morass that was our air and streams at one time with rivers colored from chemical discharges, one even on fire. We woke up and overcame it, now we continue to improve. This applies to power plants as well, we will and have gotten better. The plants in question are much older designs which would not be licensed today as new construction.

*******************************************************

•About 90 percent of nonmelanoma skin cancers are associated with exposure to ultraviolet (UV) radiation from the sun.

•One person dies of melanoma every hour (every 62 minutes).


http://www.skincancer.org/Skin-Cancer-Facts/#aging


Maybe our trolls would like to shutdown the big reactor or legislate the use of SPF 1000 to protect society. Don't forget to ban cheap sunglasses they open the iris but do not block the UV that enters the eye at a higher dose.

Let's not forget the man who built a solar home to avoid using nuclear power generated electricity and found his home had radon levels that exceeded the annual allowable dose for a radiation worker.

What about the Radon spas in caves that claim to be medically beneficial that the government has not shut down?


The list goes on but all the trolls want to hear is that we are all a bunch of Homer Simpsons without a clue.

The struggle continues.    

[bismuth-210]

i don't recall ever asking any questions.  just supporting plutone's view and request for serious answers.

i am neither pro nor anti nuke.  just pro clean/sustainable energy.  if that ever exists.  Germany certainly is taking an initiative and their populace is active regarding shaping their future.

has anyone ever come up with a viable plan to store nuclear waste ?  save me, yucca mtn or dry cask storage.  i think that is a proper and serious question.

re: nuclear being deadly or the most dangerous.  let me clarify.  nothing ever invented by man is capable of that much destruction (the bomb).  and radioactive isotopes have the capability to render land uninhabitable for tens of thousands of years.  

to operate nuclear power generating plants without a clue as how to contain them in the event of bad stuff happening is astonishing.  see fukushima.  all that happened was the power was turned off for a day or so.  is that outlandish to think that way ?  please correct my fallacy in thinking.
 

[bismuth-210]

do you guys discredit this man ?  -->

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4-yvtIL2ADs

arnie gundersen

[Marlin]

re: nuclear being deadly or the most dangerous.  let me clarify.  nothing ever invented by man is capable of that much destruction (the bomb).  and radioactive isotopes have the capability to render land uninhabitable for tens of thousands of years.

Like Hiroshima and Nagasaki? People are moving back into the land around Chernobyl.

to operate nuclear power generating plants without a clue as how to contain them in the event of bad stuff happening is astonishing.

Thanks for making my point.

[bismuth-210]

Like Hiroshima and Nagasaki? People are moving back into the land around Chernobyl.

Thanks for making my point.

Meh, who's moving back there ?  old people ?  the outcasts ?

please, comparing hiroshima and nagasaki to this is for the uneducated.  there's thousands of tons of spent fuel on site at F'shima.

[Marlin]

do you guys discredit this man ?  -->

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4-yvtIL2ADs

arnie gundersen

Yes

http://atomicinsights.blogspot.com/2011/02/arnie-gundersen-has-inflated-his-resume.html

[Marlin]

Meh, who's moving back there ?  old people ?  the outcasts ?

please, comparing hiroshima and nagasaki to this is for the uneducated.  there's thousands of tons of spent fuel on site at F'shima.

..and your credentials are??? I suspect mainly Troll as you present no real technical debate other than the normal shallow anti-nuke talking points.

[bismuth-210]

Being called a troll around here is like giving speeding tickets at the indy 500.

[RDTroja]

do you guys discredit this man ?  -->

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4-yvtIL2ADs

arnie gundersen

I got this far into his bio -- "In April 2010, Gundersen released a report (commissioned by several anti-nuclear groups)..."

So, yes, i give him very little credit. He is doing work for people with an agenda. Are you surprised he comes to the conclusions he does? I also loved the 'Please Donate' request at the end... the mark of a true scientist. Or, not.

Fail.

[bismuth-210]

Yes

http://atomicinsights.blogspot.com/2011/02/arnie-gundersen-has-inflated-his-resume.html

meh, i don't trust entergy either.

the public in vermont has spoken and they want to shut down VY.  i don't blame them.

[bismuth-210]

I got this far into his bio -- "In April 2010, Gundersen released a report (commissioned by several anti-nuclear groups)..."

So, yes, i give him very little credit. He is doing work for people with an agenda. Are you surprised he comes to the conclusions he does? I also loved the 'Please Donate' request at the end... the mark of a true scientist. Or, not.

Fail.

he's speaking for people that have little money or influence.  we have no choice regarding what types of energy our government supports or pursues.  The only way we can make a difference is at the polling both.  

I am amazed at the depth of the nuclear lobby.  I would love to be a fly on the wall at one of their strategy sessions.

[RDTroja]

Being called a troll around here is like giving speeding tickets at the indy 500.

That would be 'Being called a Troll around here is like getting speeding tickets at the Indy 500.' Come to think about it, that doesn't make much sense either. What exactly was your point?

It was also a fairly weak deflection of a good point. What are your credentials, anyway? I mean other than being a decay product -- according to your username.

[bismuth-210]

no real technical debate other than the normal shallow anti-nuke talking points.

refute these 'shallow' anti-nook talking points:

1) it's not cheap.  if you factor in the true cost, what would be the cost / megawatt ?  it's truly staggering.  i am talking about tschernobyl, TMI and FUUUUUUCKshima.  the cost for the damages are staggering.  and if it were so cheap then repeal price anderson and let nook power stand on its own.

2)  it's not clean.  uranium mining and the waste issue.  still after 50 or so years, there has been no solution to the waste problem.  

please Tell Me how these are shallow arguments.  

[bismuth-210]

what difference does it make what my credentials are ?  this is a public internet message board regarding nuclear power plant workers.

what are yours ?

[RDTroja]

he's speaking for people that have little money or influence.  we have no choice regarding what types of energy our government supports or pursues.  The only way we can make a difference is at the polling both.  

I am amazed at the depth of the nuclear lobby.  I would love to be a fly on the wall at one of their strategy sessions.

He is speaking for organizations with a lobby and an agenda... and asking all those poor souls with little money or influence for some of that money they don't have. According to what I have found out in about 15 minutes his title should be 'charlatan.'

The 'Nuclear Lobby' doesn't much exist. The companies that own the nuclear plants have far more money invested in conventional (i.e. coal and gas) plants than nuclear plants. So, call them the energy lobby if you want, but there are only a few organizations that are really oriented toward nuclear power. It is actually quite frustrating how little money is spent promoting nuclear power. So, take heart. Like most monsters, this one is imaginary and only lives in the minds of those that fear it.

[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).  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.

meh, i don't trust entergy either.

the public in vermont has spoken and they want to shut down VY.  i don't blame them.

My oh my how the man-crush quickly fades  

[Marlin]

refute these 'shallow' anti-nook talking points:

1) it's not cheap.  if you factor in the true cost, what would be the cost / megawatt ?  it's truly staggering.  i am talking about tschernobyl, TMI and FUUUUUUCKshima.  the cost for the damages are staggering.  and if it were so cheap then repeal price anderson and let nook power stand on its own.

2)  it's not clean.  uranium mining and the waste issue.  still after 50 or so years, there has been no solution to the waste problem.  

please Tell Me how these are shallow arguments.  

All of this from a medical X-ray technician student, how impressive. You should have the worlds problems solved in no time. Try world hunger and war, I can't wait.

Wait!!! better yet get wind power and solar down to nuclear's cost without subsidies, please note that Price Anderson is not a subsidy, but I am sure you knew that.  


"Wind energy, solar power face cloudy future"

http://money.cnn.com/2010/11/18/news/economy/renewable_energy_tax_credit/index.htm

[RDTroja]

what difference does it make what my credentials are ?  this is a public internet message board regarding nuclear power plant workers.

what are yours ?

That is what I thought. Another dedicated follower with no background or knowledge of the cause.

My credentials would not mean anything to you, but suffice it to say I have a boatload of nuclear experience over 37 years, mostly in Radiation Protection... including teaching it. I do know something which, in the real world, trumps your nothing. But, since I doubt you live in the real world, that also will mean nothing to you.

I have also come to the conclusion that I have expended more of my energy on you than you are worth.

[bismuth-210]

All of this from a medical X-ray technician student, how impressive. You should have the worlds problems solved in no time. Try world hunger and war, I can't wait.

Wait!!! better yet get wind power and solar down to nuclear's cost without subsidies, please note that Price Anderson is not a subsidy, but I am sure you knew that.  

still waiting for serious answers

[bismuth-210]

That is what I thought. Another dedicated follower with no background or knowledge of the cause.

My credentials would not mean anything to you, but suffice it to say I have a boatload of nuclear experience over 37 years, mostly in Radiation Protection... including teaching it. I do know something which, in the real world, trumps your nothing. But, since I doubt you live in the real world, that also will mean nothing to you.

I have also come to the conclusion that I have expended more of my energy on you than you are worth.

what cause do you speak of ?

i am a medical xray student .

i also have a bachelor of science.

what's your highest level of education ?

[ski2313]

i am a medical xray student .

i also have a bachelor of science.

what's your highest level of education ?

We are all honored to be in the presence of such a distinguished individual.

[bismuth-210]

i am a medical xray student .

i also have a bachelor of science.

what's your highest level of education ?

We are all honored to be in the presence of such a distinguished invidivual.

what did i do to get everyones panties in a wad?  geeeeeze.

you guys asked. if i don't fit your narrative of how things should be then i am a troll or an outsider.  again, this is a public internet message board.  

[Marlin]

what difference does it make what my credentials are ?  this is a public internet message board regarding nuclear power plant workers.

what are yours ?

My titles have included:

Engineering Watch Supervisor
Leading Engineering Laboratory Technician
Engineering Technician
Radiation Protection Technician/Supervisor/Engineer
Safety Analyst
Nuclear Criticality Safety Specialist
Hazardous waste coordinator/specialist
Superintendent
Senior Waste characterization Engineer

All at nuclear facitilities over the last 38 years.

Did I mention that I certified as an EMT and have passed the exam for the National Registry of  Radiological Protection Technologists?

[Marlin]

still waiting for serious answers

The only answers you want are those that fit your paradigm. Any answer that is outside of your belief system you attack with vitriol.

Seems to fit the Troll definition.

[bismuth-210]

fine.

let's agree to disagree then.  i agree there is wild arguments from the anti-nuke crowd.

i am still following the events over in japan because it is an interesting engineering problem. The mainstream media is doing a terrible job covering it and presenting detailed analysis.

i will still come here to get an insiders viewpoint.

[plutone]

@Marlin: Could you explain in what sense Price-Anderson is not a subsidy to the nuclear industry? It appears that the operators are not willing to purchase liability insurance that would cover the damage and losses from a major accident and that they are relying on the government (taxpayers) to cover these costs. As they have for every serious accident so far and will be forced to do in Japan.

@Brett: The only answer I have "dismissed" or even countered was the suggestion that Fukushima is only an "inconvenience" and the results are comparable to "the smoking section of a restaurant". I did find that one insulting to the workers, the evacuees and anyone of normal intelligence.

Again, very few serious answers and lots of name calling and conspiracy theories. I had expected more from informed professionals.

Since I'm here:
1) Will F'shima #5 & #6 ever operate again?

2) Does anyone have misgivings about the dependency of the industry's reputation on the continued safe operation of nuclear plants in other countries, some of which still have no containment, many of which are old and maintained to questionable standards?

[OldHP]

still waiting for serious answers

Still waiting for serious questions!

what cause do you speak of ?
i am a medical xray student .
i also have a bachelor of science

1. The cause that you, plutone, and reality check (if you arn't one and the same) are promoting.
2. So?
3. So. They do offer a BS in Pottery Making!

It seems that one of those programs would have taught a little about capitalization vs texting jargon!

I have also come to the conclusion that I have expended more of my energy on you than you are worth.

Actually, I think we all have!  The (1, 2, or 3) of them have gotten this thread way off topic.

[Marlin]

@Marlin: Could you explain in what sense Price-Anderson is not a subsidy to the nuclear industry?

No government money is involved unless a limit is exceeded, until then the insurance pool that is funded by the utilities pays all liabilities.

It appears that the operators are not willing to purchase liability insurance that would cover the damage and losses from a major accident and that they are relying on the government (taxpayers) to cover these costs. As they have for every serious accident so far and will be forced to do in Japan.

Wrong again, all payouts have come from the utilities insurance pools to date, including TMI. In 1957 no private insurance company would underwrite a nuclear power plant fully so the government passed the PAA to limit liabilities. No tax payer money has been used to supplement the commerial nuclear plant insurance pool.



http://www.eoearth.org/article/Price-Anderson_Act_of_1957%2C_United_States

[bismuth-210]

so without PAA there would be no nuclear power generating plants in the USA because nobody would underwrite them

again, how is this not a de-facto subsidy ??

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

[plutone]

@Marlin:

I appreciate the answer to the Price-Anderson insurance question. I do not wish to make any mis-statements of fact.

However I have more questions, as usual. The link you posted states that payouts at TMI were for litigation and some business interuptions and totalled about $71 million. Meanwhile the 11 year partial cleanup cost $1 billion - who paid for that? (I'm asking - maybe it was the utility ie: ratepayers)

It is also interesting that the same link declares that the insurance overlimit coverage is in fact a subsidy worth about $3.05 billion per year in 1991 dollars, as determined by the DOE's Energy Information Administration.

The fact is that all global catastrophic accidents have been and will be paid for by taxpayers.

[caerbannog]

what cause do you speak of ?

i am a medical xray student .

i also have a bachelor of science.

what's your highest level of education ?

Go get yourself a Reactor Operator license.  Your BS is a cakewalk compared to that.

[RDTroja]

@Marlin:

I appreciate the answer to the Price-Anderson insurance question. I do not wish to make any mis-statements of fact.

However I have more questions, as usual. The link you posted states that payouts at TMI were for litigation and some business interuptions and totalled about $71 million. Meanwhile the 11 year partial cleanup cost $1 billion - who paid for that? (I'm asking - maybe it was the utility ie: ratepayers)

It is also interesting that the same link declares that the insurance overlimit coverage is in fact a subsidy worth about $3.05 billion per year in 1991 dollars, as determined by the DOE's Energy Information Administration.

The fact is that all global catastrophic accidents have been and will be paid for by taxpayers.

The real fact is that EVERYTHING is paid for by taxpayers, consumers and ratepayers -- synonyms for the same people. The reason is that is where all the money comes from, whether it is a business or the government.

[nukecheese]

My titles have included:

Engineering Watch Supervisor
Leading Engineering Laboratory Technician
Engineering Technician
Radiation Protection Technician/Supervisor/Engineer
Safety Analyst
Nuclear Criticality Safety Specialist
Hazardous waste coordinator/specialist
Superintendent
Senior Waste characterization Engineer

All at nuclear facitilities over the last 38 years.

Did I mention that I certified as an EMT and have passed the exam for the National Registry of  Radiological Protection Technologists?

So, inother words, you can't keep a job.

[RealityCheck]

You have to smile at that one...

You guys are missing the point...it's not even nuclear.  Your immersion in nuclear power technology, with no other exposure (no pun intended) outside the necessarily myopic nuclear world, has limited your thinking.

We will continue to have significant events of change in our world at an increasing rate.  The world is becoming more and more complex. Humans are not equipped to deal with the current world that we live in and it is only going to get better.  Nuclear just happens to currently be at the tip of the spear.

Rest assured: the little box that you currently reside in is clearly labeled "Nuclear" but the focus of the entire world can and will change suddenly overnight when the next significant event of change occurs and no one has a clue what the label on that little box will read.  It used to say twin towers and yomamma (or was it Osama).  If you look closely, the little letters Fukushima are currently underneath Nuclear.

Nuclear will always be one of those technologies that humans attempt to wrestle to the ground and create constructs around to give the illusion of control.  I am neither pro or anti nuke, but I am clearly pro human.

I really liked the "you can't keep a job" line

[techtoolong]

I do too. Anyone with a clue knows that , that particular list of jobs is a acceptable career path in a nuclear power plant.

[namlive]

To answer your one question Plutone, Units 5/6 will not run again. TEPCO made that announcement weeks back. They will be using those units to store millions of gallons of highly radioactive water that will make dose rates prohibitive. Recent robots have taken dose rates (did not specify location- RB?) and the rates were too high to allow human entry. Turnaround rates are 10R/hr. They announced it will take an additional 6-9 months to get the situation under control. They have what we would call mrad smearable (10 E 9 dpm)  20 miles away from the site. This residential area is uninhabitable until we get a few more showers, but hey, it is not as bad as crashing into the sun!

Thanks Roger for the stewart/steward mix up. There is only a spell check button and not a stupid check. BTW the goth look is gone. My nephew has my "junk jewelry" (it looks cooler on him). My hair is gone too, and all but one of my piercings have grown over. (I ripped one really bad.) All the people I work with have never seen me with long hair, ear ring, or my standard Satan worshipping gear. In fact they wouldn't even believe it. I still have the coat to howl at full moons at Sabatat, just force of habit. Ave Satanis.

[radbrat]

So, inother words, you can't keep a job.

Isnt that Fluffy Bunny's line?

[Fluffy Bunny]

Isnt that Fluffy Bunny's line?

I would never...

Here is proof.

TBH, I wish I had said it first.

[Dave Warren]

No government money is involved unless a limit is exceeded, until then the insurance pool that is funded by the utilities pays all liabilities.

Wrong again, all payouts have come from the utilities insurance pools to date, including TMI. In 1957 no private insurance company would underwrite a nuclear power plant fully so the government passed the PAA to limit liabilities. No tax payer money has been used to supplement the commerial nuclear plant insurance pool.



http://www.eoearth.org/article/Price-Anderson_Act_of_1957%2C_United_States

Let me be the voice of reason like always....The Price Anderson Amendment Act is known as PAAA, not PAA.
The PAA is the Professional Anglers Association, which is a joke just saying it.

[RAD-GHOST]

Who gets the + karma for cleaning the thread?    

Damn Dave, you have another TITLE??

I seen Marlins list, what's your look like...Besides Nuclear God.......

RG!

[RAD-GHOST]

Marlin...whacked you with some + Karma for the clean up effort!

Let's add some clarification to the pointed question venue.  Obviously the incident in Japan drew the focus of some anti-nuclear fans.  Several that joined this site in the last two months claim a non-bias perspective on the nuclear topic, but fail to read their own writings!  As with all Anti-Nuclear groups, they know the truth and we are nothing more than uneducated pawns driven purely by economics!  Our facts are fiction and their fiction becomes fact!  They also fail to realize that we appreciate their views, but no matter how many ways, or how many times, you offer inaccurate or false information we're not going to buy it!

Realitycheck,

I, for one, appreciate the humor of your expediential doomsday perspective!

Do you own a Ron White CD? 

Have a Great Day....RG!

[Marlin]

Let me be the voice of reason like always....The Price Anderson Amendment Act is known as PAAA, not PAA.
The PAA is the Professional Anglers Association, which is a joke just saying it.

The 1988 Price-Anderson Amendments Act (PAAA) is an amendment to the Atomic Energy Act of 1954. I don't think they started the Act as an amendment.

Try and keep up Dave. 

[Cycoticpenguin]

Rest assured: the little box that you currently reside in is clearly labeled "Nuclear" but the focus of the entire world can and will change suddenly overnight when the next significant event of change occurs and no one has a clue what the label on that little box will read.  It used to say twin towers and yomamma (or was it Osama).  If you look closely, the little letters Fukushima are currently underneath Nuclear.

astoundingly poignant statement...