Like the illusion of Wall Street, with its vast and powerful investment banks, now shuttered, China too is an illusion perpetuated by the Globalists that gave us the 15,000 mile Caesar salad, poisoned cat food and lead based paint on babies' pacifiers. Like the illusion that money would come from thin air to always push housing prices higher, China has spent a generation pursuing its illusion. Pursuing an unattainable dream to be like the West, while 6000 years of its carefully shepherded top soil blows into the sea.
Your belief that land use is the limiting factor for nuclear power is hillariuos.
The answer is: One generation of plants the size of Trojan (assuming the discussed figure of 20,000 plants to make the world go around,) would consume land equal to one tenth of the total land area of Sweden. Is that sustainable? Much like Oil - a few generations might benefit, and the following generations would be left with the mess.
Joined: Feb 20, 2005 Posts: 2888 Location: Uppsala, Sweden
Posted: Mon Jun 13, 2005 7:25 am Post subject:
SolarDave wrote:
Starvid wrote:
SolarDave wrote:
How much land would 20,000 plants occupy?
Your belief that land use is the limiting factor for nuclear power is hillariuos.
The answer is: One generation of plants the size of Trojan (assuming the discussed figure of 20,000 plants to make the world go around,) would consume land equal to one tenth of the total land area of Sweden. Is that sustainable? Much like Oil - a few generations might benefit, and the following generations would be left with the mess.
Well, then I guess the area use of Trojan is mighty inefficient. If reactors are co-localized they require a few tens of hectares each, let's say 20-30 hectarers each.
30*20.000= 600.000 hectares. A 100 hectares is 1 square kilometer. This gives us a total area of 6000 square kilometers, or 1,3 % of Swedens area. And then these plants should be spread all over the world, not concentrated in Sweden.
Source: Page 15, Kärnkraft i dag och i morgon (Nuclear power today and tomorrow), published by Kungliga ingenjörsvetenskapsakademien (The Royal engineering academy of science). Written by Sven Kullander and Tomas Kĺberger in 2002. _________________ Peak oil is not an energy crisis. It is a liquid fuel crisis.
Anything is possible, in theory, but not in practice.
The problem was incessant leaks in the reactor cooling and heat transfer system, outside the reactor. The cooling medium was liquid sodium, which, of course is a highly chemically reactive liquid, although natural sodium has zero radioactivity. It has 10 RA artificial isotopes but all with short lifetimes (the longest is 2.6 years). There was never any danger of RA leaks with Super-Phénix but the Greens in Lyon and Geneva caused so much stink that the French government had to allay the fears of the population by decreeing a shut-down. I'm not sure of the details, but I think the reactor was never taken up to full power. In the few years of "service" it was operational for only a few weeks.
The cooling circuit has certainly been emptied of sodium, now, and all the coolant tanks have been disposed of.
Devil, you're right but you should add that liquid sodium reacts strongly (explosively) when in contact with air or water. That fact scared a lot of people. _________________ ______________________________________
http://GraphOilogy.blogspot.com
Anything is possible, in theory, but not in practice.
The problem was incessant leaks in the reactor cooling and heat transfer system, outside the reactor. There was never any danger of RA leaks with Super-Phénix
I don't understand.. Was there a problem with Super-Phenix?
or did it just work fine and because of public pressure it was closed??
Joined: Jul 18, 2004 Posts: 198 Location: S. Yorkshire, UK
Posted: Tue Jun 14, 2005 11:58 am Post subject:
Quote:
Was there a problem with Super-Phenix?
There were a number of accidents, of many different sorts.
Multiple minor sodium leaks
Multiple emergency depressurisations which upset nearby residents because they sounded like explosions
Roof on the electrical switchgear house collapsed
Technicians accidentally broke a vial of radioactive tracer gas in a non-nuclear portion of the plant, forcing an evacuation
The fatal blow was an air leak in the sodium circuit - no fire resulted but the sodium was severely corroded which resulted in blocked pipes and filters. Replacement of the contaminated sodium took so long that the plants operating licence lapsed (long shutdowns were not permitted under the licence), forcing the operators to reapply.
When the licence was restored it was only for 'demonstration and research' purposes not power generation.
The subsequent operation was somewhat less eventful, but nevertheless the licence was finally revoked by parliamentary decree in 1998, following a report that condemned the superphenix project as a mistake and recommended its termination.
Well, while it is dangerous, it is not as dangerous as the hype tells us. Plutonium is about as dangerous as lead when it comes to chemical toxity. And then it is also highly radioactive.
Not exactly highly radioactive. Plutonium is an alpha-emitter. If you wear gloves, you could safely pick up a piece of SOLID plutonium in your hands. I emphasize "solid". Plutonium dust is deadly - it's toxic and carcinogenic, so you don't want to sprinkle it on your breakfast cereal (or inhale it). If you ingest it, it's easily absorbed by bone marrow - not good at all.
I just found a little info on this:
Health effects of plutonium
Plutonium is sometimes described in media reports as the most toxic substance known to man, although there is general agreement among experts in the field that this is incorrect. As of 2003, there has yet to be a single human death officially attributed to plutonium exposure. Naturally-occurring radium is about 200 times more radiotoxic than plutonium, and some organic toxins like Botulism toxin are billions of times more toxic than plutonium.
The alpha radiation it emits does not penetrate the skin, but can irradiate internal organs when plutonium is inhaled or ingested. Extremely small particles of plutonium on the order of micrograms can cause lung cancer if inhaled into the lungs. Considerably larger amounts may cause acute radiation poisoning and death if ingested or inhaled; however, so far, no human is known to have died because of inhaling or ingesting plutonium and many people have measurable amounts of plutonium in their bodies. Plutonium is a dangerous substance that has been used in explosives for a long time. It is released into the atmosphere primarily by atmospheric testing of nuclear weapons and by accidents at weapon production sites. When plutonium is released into the atmosphere it will fall back onto earth eventually and end up in soils.
Because plutonium has no gamma radiation, health effects are not likely to occur while working with plutonium, unless it is breathed in or swallowed somehow.
When people breathe it in, plutonium may remain in the lungs or move to the bones or organs. Generally it stays in the body for a long time and continually exposes body tissues to radiation. After a few years this could result in the development of cancer.
Furthermore, plutonium may affect the ability to resist disease and the radioactivity from plutonium may cause reproductive failure.
Joined: Oct 12, 2004 Posts: 1647 Location: Davis, California
Posted: Tue Jun 14, 2005 11:24 pm Post subject:
I've read that 1/1,000,000th of a gram of plutonium is carcenogenic.
Plutonium emits different kinds of radiation, depending on what isotopes you have. IIRC, plutonium doesn't come as just one isotope, but many. _________________ Joseph Stalin "It is enough that the people know there was an election. The people who cast the votes decide nothing. The people who count the votes decide everything. "
I've read that 1/1,000,000th of a gram of plutonium is carcenogenic.
Plutonium emits different kinds of radiation, depending on what isotopes you have. IIRC, plutonium doesn't come as just one isotope, but many.
Pu has 15 known isotopes, I believe from 232 to 246. The dividing one is 239. Below 239, they are all alpha-emitters with short half-lives. 239, which results from the natural decay of U238>Np239>Pu239 has a longish shelf life (~24,000 years) but is also an alpha emitter. Above 239, you have a few of the isotopes which have a long half-life and a few beta-emitters.
Pu metal itself is harmless, in a block, although it may feel hot to the touch. It could be handled without problems.
Saying 1 µg is carcinogenic, without qualification and out of context, is rather sensationalist. You could probably swallow a 1 g pellet of the metal without effect, assuming it passed through. OTOH, a few dust particles of a Pu compound, inhaled, could have long-term disastrous results. The same could be said of many non-RA elements, such as beryllium, at the other end of the periodic table, which is also toxic and carcinogenic when finely divided in the µg range, so what does that prove? Nothing, nothing at all, other than Pu and Be both have to be handled with care (also their compounds). _________________ Devil
Ah!!!, now we seem to be getting somewhere regarding internal radioactivity. The problem is that the plutonium that we are likely to absorb from nuclear activities is not as solid metal but dust, aerosols etc., exactly the kind that we seem to agree is gravely toxic. Now, apply that same logic to the other radionuclides both natural and man made and man-made versions of natural and you understand the problem. Remember, nuclear operations are not possible without these minute emissions otherwise it would be too expensive to work with.
Quote:
Plutonium is sometimes described in media reports as the most toxic substance known to man, although there is general agreement among experts in the field that this is incorrect. As of 2003, there has yet to be a single human death officially attributed to plutonium exposure. Naturally-occurring radium is about 200 times more radiotoxic than plutonium, and some organic toxins like Botulism toxin are billions of times more toxic than plutonium.
Note the emphasis on OFFICIALLY ACKNOWLEDGED. Industry will have to be pressured from the grassroots level to change its policy. They will never admit it voluntarily. No toxin producing industry and its backers like to admit that their products have caused harm. This applies to the chloralkali, coal, nuclear, petrochemical and other harmful industries. _________________ For ionizing radiation “…the human epidemiological evidence establishes—by any reasonable standard of proof—that there is no safe dose or dose-rate…the safe-dose hypothesis is not merely implausible—it is disproven.” Dr. J.W. Gofman 4
The problem is that the plutonium that we are likely to absorb from nuclear activities is not as solid metal but dust, aerosols etc., exactly the kind that we seem to agree is gravely toxic.
Can you please elaborate on this? _________________ Devil
Joined: Oct 12, 2004 Posts: 1647 Location: Davis, California
Posted: Wed Jun 15, 2005 10:34 am Post subject:
Devil wrote:
0mar wrote:
I've read that 1/1,000,000th of a gram of plutonium is carcenogenic.
Plutonium emits different kinds of radiation, depending on what isotopes you have. IIRC, plutonium doesn't come as just one isotope, but many.
Pu has 15 known isotopes, I believe from 232 to 246. The dividing one is 239. Below 239, they are all alpha-emitters with short half-lives. 239, which results from the natural decay of U238>Np239>Pu239 has a longish shelf life (~24,000 years) but is also an alpha emitter. Above 239, you have a few of the isotopes which have a long half-life and a few beta-emitters.
Pu metal itself is harmless, in a block, although it may feel hot to the touch. It could be handled without problems.
Saying 1 µg is carcinogenic, without qualification and out of context, is rather sensationalist. You could probably swallow a 1 g pellet of the metal without effect, assuming it passed through. OTOH, a few dust particles of a Pu compound, inhaled, could have long-term disastrous results. The same could be said of many non-RA elements, such as beryllium, at the other end of the periodic table, which is also toxic and carcinogenic when finely divided in the µg range, so what does that prove? Nothing, nothing at all, other than Pu and Be both have to be handled with care (also their compounds).
Word, thanks for clearing that up for me. And yea, heavy metals will Fark your crap up pretty bad, no matter which ones they are. _________________ Joseph Stalin "It is enough that the people know there was an election. The people who cast the votes decide nothing. The people who count the votes decide everything. "
Do you disagree that microscopic plutonium/plutonium compound particles from nuclear bomb making and handling, reprocessing especially with MOX fuel etc. end up in soil dust, in estuarine mud etc. and gradually gets distributed around? We cannot handle any solid material without some minute fraction of it being made dust like. The more handling, the more likely for some of it to be in that form. We must not forget radioactive strontium, caesium and others in addition to our everyday chemical toxins that compound the hazards. _________________ For ionizing radiation “…the human epidemiological evidence establishes—by any reasonable standard of proof—that there is no safe dose or dose-rate…the safe-dose hypothesis is not merely implausible—it is disproven.” Dr. J.W. Gofman 4
Do you disagree that microscopic plutonium/plutonium compound particles from nuclear bomb making and handling, reprocessing especially with MOX fuel etc. end up in soil dust, in estuarine mud etc. and gradually gets distributed around?
Sure. Theres little bits of crap in your toothbrush too, just from being in the bathroom. Doesn't put you at extreme risk of disease though. You're lacking a sense of perspective of the relative dangers of plutonium in the course of nuclear power generation, or even a catastrophic nuclear accident.
Quote:
We must not forget radioactive strontium, caesium and others in addition to our everyday chemical toxins that compound the hazards.
Hmm... as I recall the dangers of a 'dirty bomb' being set off with a bunch of radioactive cesium are largely due to the explosion itself. Now we can say that someone that lives within 100 feet of such an explosion has their risk of cancer go up by 1 in 100 over the next 30 years, but thats kind of lost in the statistical noise given that the base chance of getting cancer is 1 in 5.
Sure. Theres little bits of crap in your toothbrush too, just from being in the bathroom. Doesn't put you at extreme risk of disease though. You're lacking a sense of perspective of the relative dangers of plutonium in the course of nuclear power generation, or even a catastrophic nuclear accident.
You see this is where your position on the scale of damage of radioactive material come into play. Some, like me believe that some radioactive material like Strontium and plutonium are more hazardous than the official establishment claims and admits. They have physical, chemical, biological and radiological properties that enhance risk compared to common natural radionuclides which in their own right are not harmless. Radon comes readily to mind.
Others like you believe that it is not as hazardous. I have seen enough to seriously question industry's claim. The cancer incidence after Chernobyl in Belarus, the simultaneous rise in infant mortality in Germany, Greece, the U.S in the year following Chernobyl as well as drop in observed bird hatchings in several locations and several others. Of course, each side attacks the other claiming the influence of confounding variables etc. and it can be stated without bias that there is intense scientific controversy over the matter.
The establishment people (i.e. governments, industry, defence, many of the medical profession) tend to be on the side of NOT HARMFUL. The grassroots people and those who claim to have a conscience side on the DANGEROUS. The establishment people in many respects deserve the distrust that they receive given their secrecy, the refusal to provide data when requested etc. etc. When your health and the health of your progeny is in question however, in an atmosphere of controversy, common sense dictates that we err on the side of caution.
I have not been eating as many bananas of late but not out of fear of the radioactive potassium. The ones I get here in North America simply don't taste as good as those I got back home (Jamaica W.I.) As I stated earlier however, despite potassium being indispensible in the structure of DNA, the radiological properties like decay route are different from plutonium, strontium or even radon/radium/uranium and could account for significantly less risk. It is most likely not 100% harmless however.
Actually, I think they say the base chance of getting cancer is 1 in 2 or 3 over a lifetime. Have you asked yourself why is the base chance of getting cancer so high? What factors are responsible? Final note, many assume natural background is harmless, I think not and it alone is probably responsible for a sizable portion of the health and genetic afflictions of life on earth.. _________________ For ionizing radiation “…the human epidemiological evidence establishes—by any reasonable standard of proof—that there is no safe dose or dose-rate…the safe-dose hypothesis is not merely implausible—it is disproven.” Dr. J.W. Gofman 4
Given the data in the above links I find your quote of Goffman, who has been refuted quite often by health physicists an interesting choice.
Health physicists and nuclear medicine doctors have no reason to falsify their results, they get paid to keep workers as healthy as possible and to treat patients through measured administration of ionizing radiation and radio-nucleides.
Animals which are prevented from absorbing radioactive Potassium die much sooner than those with a natural ammount in their diet. People who live in area's with higher doses of background radiation tend to have fewer cancers per unit of population. Professions like X-ray technician, Dentist and Airline pilot all experience higher than average doses of radiation from their occupations and show a statistically lower incidence of cancer.
The rate of the dose and the life time dose appear to be large factors in how much radiation you can tollerate without cancer, how much will benefit you through hormesis, and how much is the minimum you need to live a relatively healthy life.
The notion that there is no safe dose can no longer be supported based on the scientific evidence. _________________ Always appeal to a man's enlightened self interest, you can trust him to look out for himself honestly, It's when you appeal to his Honor or the Common Good that he stops paying attention.
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum
News
Discussions
Resources
Members
Forum FAQ
Search
Usergroups
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
