Front page of USA Today "money" section: Nuclear power inches back into energy spotlight

[Guest]

Re: Front page of USA Today "money" section: Nuclear power inches back into energy spotlight

Just sharing a bed with another person increases exposure to radiation.

Wonderful deadpan delivery there Scot.

[reallife]

Re: Front page of USA Today "money" section: Nuclear power inches back into energy spotlight

You would be amazed at the number of people who are in the radon remediation business, but don't have a system in their home. I know of one who had a dirt floor basemant and a high radon count. He never did anything about it. He raised a few kids in that house. That's all you have to know about radon.

Sounds like Darwinism in action to me. I had my last home inspected for radon and spent a half hour or so discussing radon and radioactivity with the guy. He had much less than a high school physics student's knowledge of the topic. In fact, he knew absolutely nothing about radon or any other radioactive element. He knew nothing about chemistry, physics or biology. He knew how to install the remediation equipment, barely. A guy who works in the radon remediation business and knowingly exposes his children to high radon levels for at least two thirds of their developmental period is an idiot. To suggest that these guys know all there is to know about radon is ludicrous. :rolleyes:

BTW, I am in favor of responsible development of nuclear energy but it is not ever going to replace the petroleum energy we are currently squandering.

[Rajiv]

Re: Front page of USA Today "money" section: Nuclear power inches back into energy spotlight

These were the two threads

Warning: The mining boom is fading fast
Economic Impact of Peak Oil Part 1: A Flashback

[Guest]

Re: Front page of USA Today "money" section: Nuclear power inches back into energy spotlight

Those were really good, pithy discussions of the bottom line yield for nuclear energy.

These were the two threads

Warning: The mining boom is fading fast
Economic Impact of Peak Oil Part 1: A Flashback

[sgominator]

Re: Front page of USA Today "money" section: Nuclear power inches back into energy spotlight

Long half-life radioactive wastes are quite low level and anything but deadly.
You can ask my other two heads if you don't believe me.

Ok, i'll do that :p

[Rajiv]

Re: Front page of USA Today "money" section: Nuclear power inches back into energy spotlight

See also a thread I just started - Sustainable Energy - without the hot air

[Jay]

Re: Front page of USA Today "money" section: Nuclear power inches back into energy spotlight

One single dental X-ray gives-off more ionizing radiation than the public received from Three Mile Island. And yet the public shows no concern about dental X-rays, even entire mouthfulls of them.

Yes, I assert that the eco-frauds have made the public hysterical about nuclear power, and that was easy to do with mis-information and bogus studies from Greenpeace, the Sierra Club, the Rocky Mtn. Institute, W.A.R.N. in North Carolina, and the E.P.A. in Washington.

Now it is time to set the record straight and re-educate the public about many issues concerning energy and the environment. It is time to push-back.

One single chest xray is about the same radiation dose that is received during a flight across the US.

[ThePythonicCow]

Re: Front page of USA Today "money" section: Nuclear power inches back into energy spotlight

One single dental X-ray gives-off more ionizing radiation than the public received from Three Mile Island.

Wander over to the Tree Mile Island thread, at http://www.itulip.com/forums/showthread.php?p=88996, and then let me know if you still believe this.

[Diarmuid]

Re: Front page of USA Today "money" section: Nuclear power inches back into energy spotlight

I don't know if this has been discussed before if so apologies; but Daniel Nocera prof a MIT has claimed to come up with a catalyst that mimics photosynthesis and overcomes the storage problems associated with ineffecient but limitless "alternative" energy production his main issue with current energy discussions is just that when discussing energy solutions efficiency is primary and of course currently wind, solar, etc. are highly inefficient but because they are in real terms inexhaustible if an appropriate clean method of storage can be found the efficiency issue becomes secondary - interesting concept IMO - however being one of the tin foil hat wearing brigade I believe even if the technology is feasible (big if I know) it will never see the light of day under the current financial / political environment as it would allow for decentralized energy production (according to Nocera).


http://outside.away.com/outside/cult...el-nocera.html

[Starving Steve]

Re: Front page of USA Today "money" section: Nuclear power inches back into energy spotlight

So the Chernobyl 3-Mile Island crowd are tree-hugging earth-warming eco-terrorists. I didn't know that. Thanks for filling me in. You can't beat wide ranging hyperbole to answer an inquiry

Chernobyl did NOT have a containment building. Western designs for power plants have always had double containment systems. These designs are far different from Chernobyl. So the one resorting to hyperbole is you.

[c1ue]

Re: Front page of USA Today "money" section: Nuclear power inches back into energy spotlight

Steve,

Nuclear power is viable and can be a good source of power.

But employing Rove-style tactics to advocate it is not productive.

Asserting how much radiation was or was not released at Three Mile Island is disingenuous.

The reality is that half the nuclear pile melted. A huge amount of energy was generated, and that energy could have done any number of unexpected things. So far a 'China Syndrome' hasn't happened where the radioactive meltdown reaches groundwater, but it still could occur.

Secondly even a containment building isn't a magic wand. The radiation generated still exists and a failure of the building in the future will release radioactive dust. Go check out any 50s era military installation and see what lack of maintenance does - then consider the hundreds or thousands of years necessary to maintain a radioactive containment building.

Thirdly the spent fuel is still an issue that is not resolved. Besides being a source of radiation, it also can be mined for plutonium for weapons.

Even the coal plant radiation output vs. a nuclear power plant radiation output is disingenuous: the coal plant isn't ever going to explode nor can radioactive weapons be generated in any way from its contents or operation.

The analogy is like saying 50000 tons of coal have the same radiation as 1 speck of plutonium. True, but one is quite a bit more dangerous than the other.

There are many more areas of concern.

The point is - trying to say that nuclear power is safe is not a true statement. A nuclear power plant is a high energy area. Unexpected things can happen in high energy areas - and having large numbers of these areas requires a major and long term engineering commitment.

I'd rather have the real risks be known and get the commitment than gloss over the opposition's complaints.

[Starving Steve]

Re: Front page of USA Today "money" section: Nuclear power inches back into energy spotlight

The fact is that only 100 millirems of radiation was released from Three Mile Island--- less than one dental X-ray to the population around the plant. You can talk about Jane Fonda's China Syndrome all you want, but the fact is that not much happened around Three Mile Island.

A case can be made that Three Mile Island might not have even been news except that Jane Fonda produced her movie, China Syndrome, three weeks before the incident. So the public was hysterical about nuclear power, and Hollywood sold tickets to the movie everywhere.

To date, no-one has been killed in a nuclear power incident in the U.S, Canada, Latin America, Australia, Japan, Korea, China, India, the UK, and Europe. No-one. And no-one has been injured in a nuclear power incident. That clean record goes back to the Manhattan Project of WWII.

[ThePythonicCow]

Re: Front page of USA Today "money" section: Nuclear power inches back into energy spotlight

The fact is that only 100 millirems of radiation was released from Three Mile Island--- less than one dental X-ray to the population around the plant. You can talk about Jane Fonda's China Syndrome all you want, but the fact is that not much happened around Three Mile Island.

A case can be made that Three Mile Island might not have even been news except that Jane Fonda produced her movie, China Syndrome, three weeks before the incident. So the public was hysterical about nuclear power, and Hollywood sold tickets to the movie everywhere.

To date, no-one has been killed in a nuclear power incident in the U.S, Canada, Latin America, Australia, Japan, Korea, China, India, the UK, and Europe. No-one. And no-one has been injured in a nuclear power incident. That clean record goes back to the Manhattan Project of WWII.

In response Steve, I quote c1ue:

Steve,

Nuclear power is viable and can be a good source of power.

But employing Rove-style tactics to advocate it is not productive.

[oddlots]

Re: Front page of USA Today "money" section: Nuclear power inches back into energy spotlight

It's the waste issue that puts nuclear power in question for me.

What are CO2 emissions if not waste? To me it's almost never a question of having problems but a question of which problems you are going to have. The unspoken assumption in so many of these discussions is that there's a perfect solution out there. (Where does this attitude come from? It mystifies me.)

Viewed side by side you have, with conventional base-load power generation (coal and natural gas) a waste issue that is fundamentally unmanageable. You can't get the stuff back once its in the atmosphere and the havoc it is causing or will likely cause is catastrophic if we continue to see the levels of CO2 emissions increase. (Not to mention the fact that we're running out of the stuff and so are about to send ourselves off a cliff.)

Compare this to nuclear waste that is, granted, supremely toxic but incredibly dense (read compact) and, in comparison to atmospheric emissions, supremely manageable. Further, all indications are that the next generation of fast breeder reactors will render this waste an asset.

I would change my mind on this if someone could show me an(other) form of alternative energy that has the potential to replace or even slow the future build out of coal and natural gas generation without assuming an unrealistic revolution in our expectations regarding lifestyle.

For my part I view every new reactor built or planned with relief.