*
Nuclear waste (mis)management around the world
Mon, 2011-12-26 08:46
#1
Nuclear waste (mis)management around the world
Mon, 2011-12-26 08:52
#2
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.
Mon, 2011-12-26 09:33
#3
In Finland, nuclear waste storage has been thought about very carefully, and it's still daunting. From the film Into Eternity (or see trailer):
Onkalo (the nuclear waste storage site) must last 100,000 years. Nothing built by man has even lasted a tenth of that timespan.
Then there are places where planning has not been so thorough. More on this soon.
Mon, 2011-12-26 10:12
#4
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
The Tokyo Metropolitan government simply announced on November 24, 2011 that it will be accepting the disaster debris from Onagawa-machi in Miyagi Prefecture starting early December and lasting till March 2013, and the debris (which is radioactive, by the way) will be burned in the waste incineration plants (in western Tokyo). The agreement has already been signed....100,000 tonnes of debris will be processed. It will be burned in the waste incineration plants operated by the municipalities, and the ashes will be buried in the landfill on the Tokyo Bay...the document from Onagawa-machi makes it clear that the debris may be burned in the private incineration plants in addition to the municipal incineration plants, and that the ashes may be used in "eco-cement".
Tue, 2011-12-27 13:54
#5
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...?
Sat, 2011-12-31 05:53
#6
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.
Sat, 2011-12-31 06:12
#7
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.
Wed, 2012-01-04 11:57
#8
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.
Wed, 2012-01-04 16:36
#9
M. Spector
I'm upset at the crap that "Nuclear Jeff" is spreading at rabble.
Wed, 2012-01-04 20:22
#10
Busby on Sky
Thu, 2012-01-05 09:39
#11
Good One.
Sun, 2012-01-08 17:34
#12
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.."
Sun, 2012-01-08 20:32
#13
autoworker
If nuclear power is so efficient, then why is there so much waste?
Mon, 2012-01-09 03:08
#14
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.
Mon, 2012-01-09 03:21
#15
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
Tue, 2012-01-10 17:44
#16
Wed, 2012-01-11 10:47
#17
...sound scientific research into the safe long term managment of nuclear wastes and the risks associated with radiation exposure.
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).
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.
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.
Thu, 2012-01-12 12:01
#18
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?
http://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.
Since when has swimming/drowning been confined to a single generation? How can you you dismiss a valid risk analysis as 'Bunk' simply because it doesn't support your alarmist response to nuclear power.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.
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.
Thu, 2012-01-12 12:14
#19
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.
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.
Fri, 2012-02-10 02:45
#20
And then there's gaseous nuclear waste, coming from reactors.
Fri, 2012-02-10 09:26
#21
And then there's gaseous nuclear waste, coming from reactors.
Once again you people post stuff without actually reading it.
THe French Study states:
Overall, the results suggest a possible excess risk of AL in the close vicinity of French NPPs in 2002-2007. The increased incidence observed at less than 5 km from the NPPs in the Geocap study only partially supports the recent German findings since the increase was limited to recent years and was not specific to the youngest children. The absence of any association with DBGZ, which is assumed to reflect the distribution of gaseous radiation discharged from NPPs, may indicate that the association observed with distance <5 km over 2002-2007 and particularly in 2006-2007, is not explained by NPP gaseous discharges.
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.
Fri, 2012-02-10 12:59
#22
You go live by an NPP then. Or a waste dump.
Fri, 2012-02-10 13:03
#23
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.
Sat, 2012-02-11 02:06
#24
Hey that's great.
Fairewinds shows that the nuclear industry's plan to vent the containment at Fukushima Daiichi could not have prevented a containment failure and the ensuing explosions. Look at the graphics from the containment stress tests conducted more than 40 years ago at a US nuclear reactor identical to Fukushima Daiichi Unit 1. This video and its graphics provide important clues about why Fukushima Daiichi Unit 1 exploded.
Sat, 2012-02-11 02:13
#25
Objective health reports are impeded by the International Atomic Energy Agency.
WHO / IAEA Conflicts of Interest
In 1959, the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA)and World Health Organization(WHO)entered into an working agreement which is out-of-date and conflicts with the research of the WHO to determine the effects of ionizing radiation exposure on human health. We are concerned that the language of this agreement (WHA 12.40 approved by the 12th World Health Assembly on 28 May 1959) mingles promotion of nuclear technology, including nuclear power, with the WHO's mandate to undertake international health research work on people exposed to ionizing radiation-a product of this same nuclear technology.
Sun, 2012-02-12 12:11
#26
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-...
Mon, 2012-02-13 09:28
#27
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.
Mon, 2012-02-13 09:38
#28
Objective health reports are impeded by the International Atomic Energy Agency.
WHO / IAEA Conflicts of Interest
In 1959, the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA)and World Health Organization(WHO)entered into an working agreement which is out-of-date and conflicts with the research of the WHO to determine the effects of ionizing radiation exposure on human health. We are concerned that the language of this agreement (WHA 12.40 approved by the 12th World Health Assembly on 28 May 1959) mingles promotion of nuclear technology, including nuclear power, with the WHO's mandate to undertake international health research work on people exposed to ionizing radiation-a product of this same nuclear technology.
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.
Mon, 2012-02-13 10:23
#29
Hey that's great.
Fairewinds shows that the nuclear industry's plan to vent the containment at Fukushima Daiichi could not have prevented a containment failure and the ensuing explosions. Look at the graphics from the containment stress tests conducted more than 40 years ago at a US nuclear reactor identical to Fukushima Daiichi Unit 1. This video and its graphics provide important clues about why Fukushima Daiichi Unit 1 exploded.
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.
Sun, 2012-02-19 03:05
#30
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.
Not redundantly, but [b]independently[/b]. 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.
Sun, 2012-02-19 03:12
#31
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]
Sun, 2012-02-19 03:16
#32
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.
Mon, 2012-02-20 02:26
#33
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.
Mon, 2012-02-20 04:36
#34
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.)
Mon, 2012-02-20 09:20
#35
Not redundantly, but [b]independently[/b]. 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.
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.
Mon, 2012-02-20 09:46
#36
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.
Mon, 2012-02-20 09:53
#37
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?
Mon, 2012-02-20 19:20
#38
Democracy Now: 'The Atomic States of America': Exploring a Nation's Struggle with Nuclear Power (and vid)
Wed, 2012-02-22 11:46
#39
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.
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."
Wed, 2012-02-22 11:58
#40
I mean since no one here questions the linear non-threshold theorem...
Please explain instead of assume, Mr. Superior Researcher.
Wed, 2012-02-22 12:01
#41
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.
Wed, 2012-02-22 13:16
#42
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.
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.
Wed, 2012-02-22 14:46
#43
M. Spector
Mr. Superior Researcher has been [url=http://rabble.ca/babble/canadian-politics/why-bob-rae-still-being-treate... to the dustbin of history.
Wed, 2012-02-22 19:05
#44
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.
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.
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.
Thu, 2012-02-23 01:11
#45
I was willing to engage NukeJeff, but won't complain at all about having him banished.
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
Mon, 2012-04-02 22:42
#46
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.'"
Sat, 2012-04-07 21:14
#47
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.
Thu, 2012-06-21 21:32
#48
Nuclear Storage: Explosive Developments - by Dr Chris Busby
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
Mon, 2012-08-20 12:01
#49
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.."
Wed, 2012-10-24 08:05
#50
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.
Wed, 2012-10-24 08:10
#51
You're suggesting we need to put nuclear scoundrels to the sword?