babble-intro-img
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

50 replies [Last post]

Comments

ilha formosa
Offline
Joined: Feb 1 2010

NuclearJeff wrote:

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.

You have the superior research skills, go find it yourself. Otherwise, be a self-contradiction.


ilha formosa
Offline
Joined: Feb 1 2010

Iodine-131

Quote:
Much smaller incidental doses of iodine-131 than are used in medical therapeutic uses, are thought to be the major cause of increased thyroid cancers after accidental nuclear contamination.[2] These cancers happen from residual tissue radiation damage caused by the I-131, and usually appear years after exposure, long after the I-131 has decayed.

 


Red Tory Tea Girl
Offline
Joined: Feb 15 2010

I'm not going to pretend that fission is just peachy keen and problem-free... what I am, however going to maintain, is that compared to the tens of thousands coal kills every year with resperatory illness and water contamination and of all things, increased radiation, that in considering which technology makes a superior stop-gap as we bring alternative energies online, nuclear is vastly preferable...

Or we could just listen to the lite version of the Deep Ecologists, like Vandana Shiva, and impose massive reductions in living standards, go back to deindustrialized agriculture... and watch four billion starve to death in the next century instead of four hundred million, just for the sake of the aesthetic prejudices of the middle-class.

And yes, I'll happily live next to a nuclear plant if it's between that or a coal plant or a decrease in electricity availability that pushes many working-class people into the underclass. So sayeth the girl living in the North American athsma corridor.

http://nextbigfuture.com/2011/03/deaths-per-twh-by-energy-source.html

For those of you who don't read the article, the estimate of nuclear fatalities treats every one of the 4000 cases of thyroid cancer linked to Chernobyl as a fatality. (As opposed to the nine fatalities that have actually occurred.)


NuclearJeff
Offline
Joined: Feb 15 2011

ilha formosa wrote:

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.

The second you quote Helen Caldicott you're no longer dealing in any sort of truth.  That woman is a menace to society, and isn't worth the air that comes out of her fame whoring mouth.  Anyone who takes the time to read and check the garbage she writes will know she's completely full of it. 

The IAEA does not restrict research.  There is simply an agreement to defer research on the topic of radiation to the experts on radiation.  Sounds almost logical to me.  The IAEA also has no control over the research done by independent think tanks and research groups.  You're grasping at paranoid straws trying to turn the IAEA/WHO agreement into some conspiracy to kill everyone with radiation.

Quote:
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.
You're the one trying to make claims that nuclear power causes cancer and leukemia.  I was the one who pointed out the holes.  More interesting are the plethora of studies that show areas of higher background radiation have the lowest cancer rates.  Or a little of your own research will show that coutnries that eat the most bananas, rich in K-40, have some of the lowest cancer rates as well.  Radiation... reducing illness...?  It's called radiation hormesis, and is worth your time to read up about. 

"Put all research on an equal footing,..."  ...The way you've written that suggests that equal amounts of money be spent researching the effects of pencil sharpening accidents as on the effects of ionizing radiation.  However I ASSUME you mean that all research into the effects of ionizing radation be given equal funding.  But your request seems to be based on the assumption that research is done for or against nuclear.  Research is research.  The results are the results.  They cannot be for or against anything.  Just because the results don't show your hypothesis that nuclear power is killing the world to be true, doesn't make it wrong, or pro-nuclear.  The facts are just the facts.

 


NuclearJeff
Offline
Joined: Feb 15 2011

ilha formosa wrote:

Quote:
All caesium-137 existing today is unique in that it is totally anthropogenic (man-made). Unlike most other radioisotopes, caesium-137 is not produced from its non-radioactive isotope but as a byproduct of nuclear fission,[7] meaning that until now, it has not occurred on Earth for billions of years...Caesium-137 reacts with water producing a water-soluble compound (caesium hydroxide), and the biological behavior of caesium is similar to that of potassium and rubidium. After entering the body, caesium gets more or less uniformly distributed throughout the body, with higher concentration in muscle tissues and lower in bones. The biological half-life of caesium is rather short at about 70 days.[9] Experiments with dogs showed that a single dose of 3800 μCi/kg (140 MBq/kg, or approximately 44 μg/kg) is lethal within three weeks.[10]

So because it COULD kill someone, it's bad?  The same could be said for water, which does in fact kill many people every year.  Mecury is used in CFL's, Mecury is toxic.  Selenium and Lead are used in Solar Panels, both are known to be toxic.  Just because something has dangerous properties, doesn't mean it can't be handled safely.  The byproducts of nuclear fission are maintained in a safe state, and do not put the publc at risk.


NuclearJeff
Offline
Joined: Feb 15 2011

ilha formosa wrote:

Iodine-131

Quote:
Much smaller incidental doses of iodine-131 than are used in medical therapeutic uses, are thought to be the major cause of increased thyroid cancers after accidental nuclear contamination.[2] These cancers happen from residual tissue radiation damage caused by the I-131, and usually appear years after exposure, long after the I-131 has decayed.

 

So if the claim is that smaller amounts of I-131 from reactor accidents cause cancer... smaller than are used in medical exams... shouldn't that mean that medicine is giving everyone cancer?  I mean since no one here questions the linear non-threshold theorem, your answer SHOULD be that xrays and diagnostic imaging are more dangerous to public health than nuclear accidents.  That is in fact what you are saying isn't it? 


NDPP
Offline
Joined: Dec 27 2008

Democracy Now: 'The Atomic States of America': Exploring a Nation's Struggle with Nuclear Power (and vid)

http://vimeo.com/35575291


ilha formosa
Offline
Joined: Feb 1 2010

NuclearJeff wrote:

So if the claim is that smaller amounts of I-131 from reactor accidents cause cancer... smaller than are used in medical exams... shouldn't that mean that medicine is giving everyone cancer?

This just goes to show you don't read the whole article. The wikipedia article says higher doses of iodine-131 do not cause cancer, since they kill off the thyroid cells. Meanwhile there is a linear increase of cancer along with moderate doses. Remember, you are the superior researcher. This doesn't mean I agree with your point of view. You seem like an industry PR shill paid to keep up with the public debate. This doesn't mean I agree with your point of view. And calling Helen Caldicott a whore is not a rational argument.

Quote:
high doses of the isotope are sometimes less dangerous than low doses, since they tend to kill thyroid tissues that would otherwise become cancerous as a result of the radiation. For example, children treated with moderate dose of I-131 for thyroid adenomas had a detectable increase in thyroid cancer, but children treated with a much higher dose did not. Likewise, most studies of very-high-dose I-131 for treatment of Graves disease have failed to find any increase in thyroid cancer, even though there is linear increase in thyroid cancer risk with I-131 absorption at moderate doses.[1] Thus, iodine-131 is increasingly less employed in small doses in medical use (especially in children), but increasingly is used only in large and maximal treatment doses, as a way of killing targeted tissues. This is known as "therapeutic use."


ilha formosa
Offline
Joined: Feb 1 2010

A Red Tory...I almost feel camaraderie with you, with those nutcase neocons and neocon policies coming out of the woodwork. I'm no fan of coal either.

Red Tory Tea Girl wrote:

in considering which technology makes a superior stop-gap as we bring alternative energies online, nuclear is vastly preferable...


Assuming that is, hypothetically, the case, then why not thorium instead of uranium? And why not give more subsidies to renewables instead of nuclear and fossil fuels? And how about incentives to simply CONSERVE, as conservatives should do.

Babble thread on thorium here.


ilha formosa
Offline
Joined: Feb 1 2010

NuclearJeff wrote:

I mean since no one here questions the linear non-threshold theorem...

Please explain instead of assume, Mr. Superior Researcher.


ilha formosa
Offline
Joined: Feb 1 2010

List of nuclear waste treatment technologies

All of these require resources, energy, and space. Do not forget to include these costs in the calculations. Ask NukeJeff for details of each.


M. Spector
Offline
Joined: Feb 19 2005

Mr. Superior Researcher has been banished to the dustbin of history.


Red Tory Tea Girl
Offline
Joined: Feb 15 2010

ilha formosa wrote:

A Red Tory...I almost feel camaraderie with you, with those nutcase neocons and neocon policies coming out of the woodwork. I'm no fan of coal either.

Red Tory Tea Girl wrote:

in considering which technology makes a superior stop-gap as we bring alternative energies online, nuclear is vastly preferable...


Assuming that is, hypothetically, the case, then why not thorium instead of uranium? And why not give more subsidies to renewables instead of nuclear and fossil fuels? And how about incentives to simply CONSERVE, as conservatives should do.

Babble thread on thorium here.

Well, the only objection I can think of with thorium is the Dr. Strangelove references will increase to an intolerable intensity... honestly, I don't know. I do know that the worst nuclear power disaster in human history killed fewer people than six months of American Coal.

Incentives to conserve? Well those are great, and I'm always in favour of methods of reducing energy intensity. *looks over her shoulder at the compact flourescent.* But there's one teeny, tiny, little problem:

If we sharply curtailed energy usage, people would, um... die. Not everyone, mind you, but yes, by all means, cut the heat and the air conditioning and see if we don't get a few more deaths as global average temperatures rise by 4C (7 in Ontario, 5 in the prairies) not to mention farming and agricultural inputs that are going to be necessary to do what we can to blunt the famine on it's way by mid-century if global temperatures experience that kind of rise.

Cutting back sufficiently to replace all, or even a significant portion of, coal generation right now will kill people. Seven billion people on the planet makes industrial-intensity-agriculture and transportation a necessity.

Oh, and I keep trying to talk about incentives to conserve. The cultural left hates them because someone can buy the right to pollute, with limits. With Limits being the operative phrase. Instead we get deep ecologist threads saying that the market (i.e. incentives) can never save us. And it's actually somewhat difficult for them to do so even if we introduced a carbon tax. You know why? A carbon tax is highly regressive, and again, many babblers are not prepared to introduce sufficient income supports to offset that regressivity.

I don't think capitalism will be our savior. In fact, property rights wrt discovered petrolium reserves are currently exascerbating this crisis. But at the same time, I don't think anti-industrialism is anything but a harkening back to methods of non-transparent social control and coercion, making the outcasts starve... and a lot of other people in the sum calculation of it.

I'm about as willing to live The Handmaid's Tale with folk music as I am without.


ilha formosa
Offline
Joined: Feb 1 2010

I was willing to engage NukeJeff, but won't complain at all about having him banished.

Quote:

This is the nature of nuclear accidents: they leave a long-lasting radioactive legacy...The inherent risk in the use of nuclear energy, as well as the related proliferation of nuclear technologies, can and does have disastrous consequences. The only certain way to eliminate this potentially devastating risk is to phase out nuclear power altogether...Fukushima showed us that nuclear remains a high risk technology. But what is also clear is that nuclear fails to make the grade even in economic terms...The hidden costs of nuclear - such as waste disposal, insurance and decommissioning - are also huge, and it is the public that ends up footing the bill. Surely it makes more sense to invest billions of pounds in genuinely sustainable and low risk technologies?

As a last salvo to UnclearJeff- Go eat these: Fission products

 


NDPP
Offline
Joined: Dec 27 2008

Plasma Fusion Becomes A Reality?

http://rt.com/usa/news/plasma-fusion-energy-nuclear-080/

"Scientists in a New Jersey laboratory say they are close to a major breakthrough in the field of fusion that they predict will soon allow for an unlimited source of the cheapest, cleanest and safest energy ever...

Lawrenceville is also in the midst of a Fusion for Peace campaign, and claims that 'aneutronic nuclear energy itself could be the path to nuclear disarmament.'"


Red Tory Tea Girl
Offline
Joined: Feb 15 2010

That sounds fantastic... though I'd argue with their characterization of fission. Plasma Fusion's definitely better than Uranium Fission, but then, it's also better than any other large-scale energy source on the planet in terms of safety and fatalities per megawatt... supplanting Uranium Fission which currently holds that position.


NDPP
Offline
Joined: Dec 27 2008

Nuclear Storage: Explosive Developments - by Dr Chris Busby

http://youtu.be/nAI5IKAWhk0

Sweden's Forsmark nuclear waste repository plan -  exploding cylinders of nuclear waste and the destruction of the Baltic Sea. This WILL happen. Take Action now

Pandora's Canisters

http://www.bsrrw.org/


NDPP
Offline
Joined: Dec 27 2008

Nuclear Cover-Up Threatens Great Lakes Region  -  by Michael Leonardi

http://www.counterpunch.org/2012/08/20/nuclear-cover-up-threatens-great-...

"...NRC collusion with utilities to conceal grave safety problems.."


Clarence12
Offline
Joined: Oct 24 2012

The radioactivity of all nuclear waste diminishes with occasion. All radioisotopes restricted in the squander have a semi life the time it takes for some radionuclide to mislay partly of its radioactivity and finally all radioactive waste decays into non radioactive rudiments.

http://www.swordsswords.com/battle-ready-sword.aspx


Slumberjack
Offline
Joined: Aug 8 2005

You're suggesting we need to put nuclear scoundrels to the sword?


Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.
Login or register to post comments