babble is rabble.ca's discussion board but it's much more than that: it's an online community for folks who just won't shut up. It's a place to tell each other — and the world — what's up with our work and campaigns.
Nuclear waste (mis)management around the world
December 26, 2011 - 9:46am
*
I'd like this discussion thread to be on nuclear waste management and mismanagement around the world.
I've searched and found many rabble articles but not many babble threads specifically on the handling of nuclear waste from nuclear energy generation. (Here's one: Nuclear waste site at Kincardine)
Nuclear waste management is an international and intergenerational issue.
Where will the fallout fall? The jet stream passes over Japan and on to North America.
Radioactive contaminated debris are about to be BURNED in OSAKA and the other cities!
Kyoto Firms To Incinerate Radioactive Waste
http://seetell.jp/en/22967
In Finland, nuclear waste storage has been thought about very carefully, and it's still daunting. From the film Into Eternity (or see trailer):
Then there are places where planning has not been so thorough. More on this soon.
Canada Quietly Shipping Bomb Grade Uranium to US says 'SECRET' Federal Memo
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/national/canada-quietly-shipping-bom...
and whose communities are these deadly shipments endangering...?
One would hope the shortest, least populated route to the US border. Crossing at Alexandria Bay? But then set, predictable routes are less secure from hijacking.
In Taiwan, under a kind of colonized duress, the aboriginal people of Orchid Island (Lanyu) began accepting monetary payments to have a shoddy nuclear waste storage facility located on their ancestral home island. Recent detection of radiation leaks and rising cancer rates now have them rethinking this arrangement.
Nuclear waste, radiation, "fall out", are all things that exist yes. They also all pose a risk to human health. That is a fact.
However, what I find most people don't understand is the relative risk they pose. That is, how scared should you be of nuclear waste, or Fukushima, as compared to... driving to the grocery store, or swimming in a pool.
On average, 9 people a day drown in the US alone. Traffic Accidents kill over a million people every year. Yet we think nothing of taking a dip in the pool, orgetting in the car and driving away. Over the entire history of nuclear technology, we cannot begin to approach the same level of injuries or fatalities. The risk from nuclear technology is miniscule. But as we all know, people will fear what they don't understand.
I encourage everyone to read as much technical research as they can on the management of nuclear waste around the world, and how we interact with radiation, from both natural and man made sources. AECL, and NWMO in Canada, SKB in Sweden, ANDRA in France, NAGRA in Switzerland, the IAEA and ICRP are all excellent resources for sound scientific research into the safe long term managment of nuclear wastes and the risks associated with radiation exposure.
I'm upset at the crap that "Nuclear Jeff" is spreading at rabble.
Busby on Sky
http://rabble.ca/comment/1305692
Good One.
Safe long-term management of nuclear waste requires ultra-safe storage somewhere for a minimum of 100,000 years. That's a conservative estimate, given the HALF-life of plutonium-239 is over 24,000 years, and that of uranium-238 is over 4.4 Billion years. Please do post more info on the "sound scientific research into the safe long term management of nuclear wastes" as it comes in through your news ticker. In addition, how do you guarantee the safety of nuclear waste from extreme natural events, or human error/malice? One comprehensively thought-out storage site is in Onkalo, Finland, and still their task is highly daunting (see 'Into Eternity' link above).
The relative risk. What bunk. Are you talking about one single selfish lifetime such as your own? How concerned should one be about the level of pollution for likely the rest of human history (see: Plutonium From Fukushima Made It Around The Planet). Regardless of how safely materials are stored, handled and managed, as long as nuclear power is in use, more long-lived radioactive particles will enter the environment and into food and water sources, thus the "relative risk" of cancer, birth defects and other complications goes up, pretty much daily.
If you care at all about future human generations, you worry about the accumulating radioactive particles in the air, sea and soil. But, granted, you may not need to worry as much if you are from a rapidly reproducing and evolving species, like a cockroach driving to the grocery store, or a bacterium swimming in some cesspool.
The Great Lakes Nuclear Waste War
http://www.themarknews.com/articles/5109-the-great-lakes-nuclear-waste-war
"What fool would put nuclear waste under the Great Lakes?' one local Michigan official has asked..."
Nishnawbe Aski Nation
http://netnewsledger.com/2012/01/06/nishnawbe-aski-nation-nuclear-waste-...
"Nuclear waste is a poison that will damage our homelands.."
If nuclear power is so efficient, then why is there so much waste?
The full costs of the waste are externalized, or passed on to future generations, or simply not calculated in because they are not entirely known. What is the running total of costs due to cancer, or otherwise substandard health? Hard to count, largely ignored.
There is also low and intermediate level waste. Things like clothing and mops used inside nuclear facilities are incinerated. Heck, what's a few more particles in the air every day, of cesium-137 or strontium-80 or cobalt-60 or whichever of the 200 radioactive isotopes from nuclear fission going to do? Don't worry, just eat your burger.
Before going to long-term storage, spent nuclear fuel needs to sit in cooling pools for at least 5 years. These cooling pools require high maintenance, and of course, security. The US is not far from a Fukushima-like cooling pool accident.
US Spent Nuclear Fuel Largest Concentration Of Radioactivity On Planet
Bob Alvaraz: US has 71,000 metric tons of spent nuclear fuel that is not properly protected
NIMBY: Nukes in my back yard – PART 2http://www.nwmo.ca/technicalresearch : All the most recent canadian research on spent fuel disposal. Might want to clear your schedule if you want to review all of it...
If you are also so inclined, the 1994 EIS done by AECL "Environmental Impact Statement on the Concept for Disposal of Canada's Nuclear Fuel Waste, AECL technical report AECL-10711" is a good read too. Might have to fill out that freedom of informationa ct form though.
Given that on average, people get about 0.6 mSv a year from medical procedures, and 2.4 mSv from natural background sources, (totaling around 3 mSv from all sources), and given that contributions from fallout and accidents account for only 0.007 mSv (0.23% of total), we would need 10 times as many accidents and nuclear bomb detonations to bring that contribution up to only 2.3% of the total annual average dose. Meaning we'd need 18 more nuclear plant accidents on the scale of chernobyl and fukushima. Given 2 over 50 years... that should be 9 x50... 450 years to see nuclear plant accidents contribute up to 3% of the total average annual dose rate. How's that for a multigenerational look at things. Even if we assume an increase in accidents, say 3 every 50 years... that still gives us 300 years.
You need to remember also that nuclear fission isn't the future of our civilization. It is the bridge technology, to get us over the hump. Until fusion becomes reality, or advances in solar and wind and smart grid technologies eliminate the need for backup power, or an entirely new unforseen technology breaks through. Seems like we have about 450 years to figure it out.
What is the contribution of nuclear power to total cancers? Given that manmade radioactive sources account for 20% of average exposure, with 99% of that being from medical examinations and treatments... a better question is how many people are getting cancer from medical treatments and exams? It's funny you mention burgers, because fast food is a larger threat to north american health than nuclear power will ever be.
The nuclides you mention (I'll assume you meant Sr-90 and not 80) are all short lived and will disappear. Not to mention the fact that they aren't just being recklessly thrown into the atmosphere. Incinceration does not turn the nuclides to gas and eject them into the air. The materials being incinerated are mostly organic in nature (cottons, woods etc). The CO2 and water vapour (by products of any combustion of organics) escapes while the particulate radionuclides are trapped in filters. It is a volume reduction process, not a waste disposal process.
And then there's gaseous nuclear waste, coming from reactors.
Childhood leukemia spikes near nuclear reactors
Once again you people post stuff without actually reading it.
THe French Study states:
They are saying there MIGHT be an excess risk of AL near NPPs and they can't say why. Not that there IS one. Because their results are not statisically significant enough, and the data they used to derive it was based on very simple assumptions and missing data. It is also contradicted by several other studies which found no link between AL and NPPs.
You go live by an NPP then. Or a waste dump.
I do. I'm healthy. My children are healthy. My wife is healthy. My friends are healthy. Even my Dog is healthy.
You'd think statistically ONE of them would have a problem if you were right about this. Fact is, statistics don't support the theory that NPP's cause any kind of illness.
Thanks for coming out though.
Hey that's great.
Objective health reports are impeded by the International Atomic Energy Agency.
WHO / IAEA Conflicts of Interest
Clean-Energy-Loving Germany Increasingly Exporting Electricity to Nuclear-Heavy France
http://cleantechnica.com/2012/02/09/clean-energy-loving-germany-increasi...
Renewables Helped France Avoid Freezing in the Dark
http://www.renewableenergyworld.com/rea/news/article/2012/02/renewables-...
http://www.iea.org/stats/surveys/mes.pdf
ALL countries import and export power back and forth from each other at their peak times. That's nothing new. To claim it is all part of german green supremecy is just plain foolish. Over 2011, Germany has increased it's import rate by over 30% (page 16) from Nov. 2010 to Nov. 2011. France on the other hand, reduced its imports by almost 27% (Page 15) and increased it's exports 27%. As fas as trends go, France is the one with the better energy policy.
So how has this stopped concerned parties who aren't the WHO from doing the research. Oh wait, it hasn't. Just because the WHO agreed not to redundantly study the same thing that another international and fully qualfied oprganization is already doing, doesn't mean there has been a ban on research into the effects of ionizing radiation. Thousands of researchers have been studying it for decades. Many of which have no association with either the WHO or the IAEA. This agreement between the two is nothing but an easy to exploit hole activists use to spread mistrust.
Interesting video. He may have a legitimate point... however my superior googling skills have left me unable to obtain the information he is making his claims based on. If you can help me find that data I'd love to see it. I will reserve judgement on this video until I can see the data.
Not redundantly, but independently. According to Helen Caldicott, the IAEA does indeed restrict what studies can be done and published. Delays of studies impede accuracy. The diffuse nature of radioactive contamination is also such that it is difficult to pinpoint single causes of single diseases, which is all you seem to be looking at. As for it being a hole for activists to exploit and spread mistrust, well that is democracy. Put all research on an equal footing, with an equal voice and equal funding. That does not exist today. Just go ask your boy Harper.