Ford, Chernobyl has affects beyond the local region. Honestly the fact that I'm debating this with you shows I am wasting my time. You are in full incomparable whataboutism mode.
The increase in radiation could be measured over Europe, not the "entire planet." That change was not dangerous at all.
It was dangerous close to Pripyat (30km downwind): the area USSR evacuated. It no longer is.
I'm driven by logic and reason. It seems you're driven by fear. Radiation isn't some boogey man out to kill you while you sleep. It's a relatively well understood concept that we have effective means to combat.
And? USSR has been running 16 reactors for 40+ years and only one of them had a major accident. They learned from their mistake to not do low power tests ever again and, surprise, surprise, it never happened again. RBMK is safer because it's known than newer designs that aren't. Even in this natrium reactor, some unforeseen design shortcoming could doom them to meltdown. We can't know until after it happens, sadly.
Found this reference to post Chernobyl, Russian reactors:
Changes after Chernobyl
The Chernobyl disaster proved that the RBMK design had to be addressed. The key flaws were mentioned above, and the solutions to each of them are:[2]
Reduction of void coefficient: This task was accomplished by the installation of many fixed neutron absorbers, increase of minimum number of control rods inside the core, and an increase of uranium enrichment.
Improved emergency system: The system in the Chernobyl reactor was easily bypassed by the operator and lacked efficiency and speed. Change in design of the control rod inputs cut the insertion time from 18 seconds to 12 seconds, and the installation of a fast acting emergency protection system (FAEP) which introduced negative reactivity extremely fast.
It most certainly is. The exclusion zone is still a controlled region and not just for fun.
The danger here is you calling a 1/14 hit rate of regional catastrophy over a 40 year period acceptable, and minimizing it's impacts. You furthermore are far more convinced of the effectiveness of the changes than me.
It most certainly is. The exclusion zone is still a controlled region and not just for fun.
The danger here is you calling a 1/14 hit rate of regional catastrophy over a 40 year period acceptable, and minimizing it's impacts. You furthermore are far more convinced of the effectiveness of the changes than me.
there are some people who live in te zone now, but not many, I bet there are areas that still very dangerous. Is it Pripyat hospital that has the basement with the firemen's uniforms in that are still highly radioactive?
there are some people who live in te zone now, but not many, I bet there are areas that still very dangerous. Is it Pripyat hospital that has the basement with the firemen's uniforms in that are still highly radioactive?
Technically, the whole zone should be half as radioactive now more or less, because the chief isotope involved, cesium-137, has a half life of ~30.17 years. But yes still half as toxic as the day it started, meaning large area is toxic and parts will still kill you. Some of it may be survivable for sure, and there are indeed locals who stayed in Pripyat for example, but it's certainly not a good idea.
Apparently they are much stricter with intruders now though, because of people stealing metal and valuables that residents left behind. If i live in Ukraine i would probably go for a mooch.
"The reality is nuclear is neither clean, safe, or smart; but a very complex technology with the potential to cause significant harm," say four global experts.
"The reality is nuclear is neither clean, safe, or smart; but a very complex technology with the potential to cause significant harm," say four global experts.
Nuclear is definitely not without drawbacks. But neither is anything else. Solar and wind both take a lot of land and a lot of maintenance per MWH generated (nuclear does share the maintenance problem). Geothermal is limited in viable sources. Tidal is unproven. What's left that's not going to have a significant impact? Nuclear definitely has the strongest chance of catastrophe, and radioactive waste is still a problem. We seem to be making progress on both those fronts, but what won't get solved with nuclear, EVER, is cost. But maybe that's something we need to accept. For the grid to work, there needs to be a certain amount of turbine and rotor mass to keep the supply level, and those turbines need to be driven by something. If not nuclear, then what? ( Not a rhetorical question.)
whatever is geographically feasible. 80% of sweden's electric is hydro.
though to address the production and use of alternatives; the environmental impacts can be controlled or contained whereas nuclear has uncontrollable effects to the food chain.
After an earthquake and tsunami resulted in an accident at a nuclear power plant in Fukushima in March 2011, NOAA Fisheries tracked radiation levels in U.S West Coast tuna in order to better understand migration.
“I did not expect to find it quite as widespread,” said Blazer, a U.S. Geological Survey biologist who studies fish. Since 2003, USGS scientists have discovered male smallmouth and largemouth bass with immature eggs in several areas of the Potomac River, including near the Blue Plains Advanced Wastewater Treatment Plant in the District.
The previous studies detected abnormal levels of compounds from chemicals such as herbicides and veterinary pharmaceuticals from farms, and from sewage system overflows near smallmouth-bass nesting areas in the Potomac.
Its not nuclear power plants that cause genetic defects in fish. Its actually the common pesticides, herbicides, and fertilizer we put into our farms. At least, here in my state, all known fish-mutations are caused by farming, and sewage. Two items that have nothing to do with nuclear power plants at all.
Honestly, I'm not sure if I've ever heard of a nuclear power plant causing nearby river pollution under normal operations, aside from the "heated wastewater" (which is certainly an issue, but nothing like the genetic-damage that fertilizers cause).
Its not nuclear power plants that cause genetic defects in fish. Its actually the common pesticides, herbicides, and fertilizer we put into our farms. At least, here in my state, all known fish-mutations are caused by farming, and sewage. Two items that have nothing to do with nuclear power plants at all.
Honestly, I'm not sure if I've ever heard of a nuclear power plant causing nearby river pollution under normal operations, aside from the "heated wastewater" (which is certainly an issue, but nothing like the genetic-damage that fertilizers cause).
i understand what you're pointing out and agree agriculture chemicals have negative impacts. have the same thing happening here w/alge problems on lake eire.
but those are freshwater fish in rivers not migrating fish in the oceans.
"The reality is nuclear is neither clean, safe, or smart; but a very complex technology with the potential to cause significant harm," say four global experts.
Common Dreams is a progressive publication that would rather you freeze to death than produce heat from any source.
Keep in mind that billions of dollars sounds like a lot but you also have to remember these reactors produce power that retails in the millions per day.
Diablo Canyon (the sole remaining reactor on the west coast) has a 1138 MW and 1118 MW reactor for total generation capacity of 2256 Mw (2,256,000 kw), an annual capacity factor of 92% (0.92), 365.25 days per year, and 3600 seconds per hour (w = J/s). Put all those numbers together and you get 2,729,101,248,000 kwh per year from that one facility. In LA, electricity retails for $0.1203 per kwh. Multiply the two together and you get $328,310,880,134.4 per year of operation. Of course there's a lot of costs weighed against that gross production but any way you look at it, it's a lot of money.
Nuclear is among the cheapest sources of electricity barring hydroelectric.
Most of the ongoing costs with nuclear were staffing but new reactors have far fewer staff due to computer automation. Ongoing costs are much lower for new reactors versus the old, retiring fleet.
whatever is geographically feasible. 80% of sweden's electric is hydro.
though to address the production and use of alternatives; the environmental impacts can be controlled or contained whereas nuclear has uncontrollable effects to the food chain.
After an earthquake and tsunami resulted in an accident at a nuclear power plant in Fukushima in March 2011, NOAA Fisheries tracked radiation levels in U.S West Coast tuna in order to better understand migration.
Never? They're detecting a trace which hasn't had any documented impact on them. Nobody really knows what number is safe or unsafe in regard to radiation. Less is better.
As concerns grow about climate change, the global debate over nuclear power’s role in reducing greenhouse gases intensifies. The latest volley came ...
Keep in mind that billions of dollars sounds like a lot but you also have to remember these reactors produce power that retails in the millions per day.
Diablo Canyon (the sole remaining reactor on the west coast) has a 1138 MW and 1118 MW reactor for total generation capacity of 2256 Mw (2,256,000 kw), an annual capacity factor of 92% (0.92), 365.25 days per year, and 3600 seconds per hour (w = J/s). Put all those numbers together and you get 2,729,101,248,000 kwh per year from that one facility. In LA, electricity retails for $0.1203 per kwh. Multiply the two together and you get $328,310,880,134.4 per year of operation. Of course there's a lot of costs weighed against that gross production but any way you look at it, it's a lot of money.
whatever. got a perry right in my backyard, been a money pit since built and the electric company has been trying to sell that white elephant for decades.
The red forest has evidence of mutated plant life in the parts that survived, but generally, that's not what you fear. In complex organisms, you fear cancer later in life or worst case, immediate threat of radiation poisoning. Most of the time your offspring won't be your big worry.
Larger scale, it probably does cause an increase in mutations, but you'd never be able to track it. That's just kinda what radiation does to DNA so it's a good guess.
As concerns grow about climate change, the global debate over nuclear power’s role in reducing greenhouse gases intensifies. The latest volley came ...
There is no debate over the cleanliness of nuclear, by the way. The only greenhouse gas involved are in the fuel supply and construction. It's minimal for both especially when given in the context of emissions versus Twh of production.
whatever. got a perry right in my backyard, been a money pit since built and the electric company has been trying to sell that white elephant for decades.
» Types of Radiation | Radiation Dose | Radiation Protection | At What Level is Radiation Harmful? | Risks and Benefits Radioactivity is a part of our earth - it has existed all along. Naturally occurring radioactive materials are present in its crust, the floors and walls of our homes, schools...
Not. Really. There are radiation burns and there is acute radiation syndrome. Outside of that, radiation is just a treatable risk factor like any other. For example, it's pretty rare to attribute lung cancer to radon exposure but radon exposure is a risk factor for getting lung cancer...but so is smoking, asbestos inhalation, and dozens of other chemicals. It's nigh impossible to attribute cancer to a specific cause unless there was a direct connection between a known exposure (like industrial accident) and the death. This is exactly the case with those that died at Chernobyl and FDNPP.
The red forest has evidence of mutated plant life in the parts that survived, but generally, that's not what you fear. In complex organisms, you fear cancer later in life or worst case, immediate threat of radiation poisoning. Most of the time your offspring won't be your big worry.
Larger scale, it probably does cause an increase in mutations, but you'd never be able to track it. That's just kinda what radiation does to DNA so it's a good guess.
You know what I fear? Not having heat in the winter (have an electric furnace/heat pump), not be able to afford to run my computer (if electricity becomes scarce, the price rises and the computers will go before the heat), not being able to cook meat (electric range). You know...reasonable things. I've been radiated enough by X-rays and CT scanners to know not to fear radiation. I think about it but I do no fear it. Fear is mostly born of ignorance, and I am not ignorant.
Let's have some fun facts:
1) The going cost of new nuclear installations is approximately $10 billion per GW (see Vogtle).
2) Average capacity factor of nuclear is 92% (name plate energy generation is happening 92% of the time in a year).
3) 1 GW at 92% capacity factory = 8.06472 TWh annually
4) USA needs 4 PWh annually
5) USA is currently producing approximately 780 TWh of nuclear power (20%).
6) USA could reasonably raise that to 50% which would mean adding roughly 1,220 TWh of nuclear to the grid or 151.276 GW (see #3).
7) Combine the data in #1 and #6, it would cost roughly $1.5 trillion dollars. Since these reactors have a 60 year life span, that's only a $25 billion dollar investment per year of operation.
Seems like a really good deal to me. These power plants create very well-paid, long-lasting jobs which translates into an infusion of billions of dollars into the local economy and eliminating from the environment of the numerous pollutants spawned from natural gas and coal.
If you want to go beyond 50%, you're going to need reactors like liquid sodium that can respond to the daily ebbs and flows. The price for these reactors is largely unknown at this point.
That was 30+ years ago. However, it was then and remained so for 20+ years. The damage was quite literally so immense that it was immeasurable. Sure we can count death human bodies, but can we measure the environmental impact that is STILL going on? And in close proximity of the site it is deadly. Not to mention that the containment system in place is failing and is now leaking radioactive contamination into the environment again.
No, but it can and will do so if even one microscopic particle emitting ionizing radiation get into the body through air or consumption. It takes minimal levels of exposure to set off genetic degradation, which can be and often is deadly. Don't believe me? Look up the term "fallout syndrome" and have fun reading.
There is no debate over the cleanliness of nuclear, by the way. The only greenhouse gas involved are in the fuel supply and construction. It's minimal for both especially when given in the context of emissions versus Twh of production.
» Types of Radiation | Radiation Dose | Radiation Protection | At What Level is Radiation Harmful? | Risks and Benefits Radioactivity is a part of our earth - it has existed all along. Naturally occurring radioactive materials are present in its crust, the floors and walls of our homes, schools...
yeah, right. you know the context is exposure from nuclear power and it's waste. keep the goal posts in one place.
as much as others may enjoy your uninformed opinions of the cleanliness nuclear power, i on the other hand, have worked in a nuclear propulsion plant, albeit briefly, that opened my eyes to the nuclear power will save the world indoctrination i received in elementary school in the 70's. there is nothing safe about nuclear power, there is nothing clean about nuclear power.
It is not. USSR did a good job at clean up and containment especially close to the site. Hence why they able to keep operating reactors at the location for almost a decade after the event.
Keep in mind that RBMK are the only reactor types without serious containment. Chernobyl literally is the worst case scenario and the remainder of plants of that type are retiring over the next decade. FDNPP are a much more common design which has serious containment and releases to the environment have been minimal.
And the state of Ohio literally paid FirstEnergy to keep it running beyond 2018. I'm sure FirstEnergy would love to burn natural gas instead but is that really better for the people of the state?
The source of the radiation really doesn't matter, only the type. Light is an example of radiation and exposure to extremes of it (blindness) have a different treatment than extreme exposure to infrared (burning). The link covers all of the types of radiation that come from nuclear reactors and nuclear waste. Goal post was not moved at all. Nuclear radiation just isn't that serious of a threat unless you're within spitting distance of the fuel or the fuel is uncontained.
And the state of Ohio literally paid FirstEnergy to keep it running beyond 2018. I'm sure FirstEnergy would love to burn natural gas instead but is that really better for the people of the state?
nope. not when first energy gave kick backs. love to link you all the toledo blade, cleveland plain dealer and columbus dispatch articles but since you can't get by a paywall . . . .nevermind.
The source of the radiation really doesn't matter, only the type. Light is an example of radiation and exposure to extremes of it (blindness) have a different treatment than extreme exposure to infrared (burning).
that link was is only generally informative at best and doesn't give any detail into nuclear power waste. maybe try a few reports from both plants in my neighborhood:
yeah they start with the "you get more radiation getting an x-ray" crap. well hurr durr
and btw, like i would expect the IAEA to be forthcoming in the hazards - just like coal companies saying that the black smoke belching out of the smoke stacks are no concern ~200 years ago.
something history something something repeating . . .
You can quit the name calling and read the science anytime you like. Heck, I even gave you fun facts about isotope halflifes to play with.
And yes, I do fear carcengenic things like radiation, which yes, is linked to cancer. Shocking. It's almost like limiting my exposure to something harmful is a good idea.
I'm sure you would've visited the reactor meltdown site at Chernobyl too as I was offered to do, but declined out of "fear." I hope you wouldn't have gotten cancer that kills you like my late professor who led the tours (no we can't medically link the two, but come on man...)
The thing about that statement is radiation is about exposure over time. Yeah, an x-ray is a lot of mrads... for like half a second. If it were longer, like a meltdown you can't move or a waste dump, you may be in trouble.
It is not. USSR did a good job at clean up and containment especially close to the site. Hence why they able to keep operating reactors at the location for almost a decade after the event.
Keep in mind that RBMK are the only reactor types without serious containment. Chernobyl literally is the worst case scenario and the remainder of plants of that type are retiring over the next decade. FDNPP are a much more common design which has serious containment and releases to the environment have been minimal.
I've been radiated enough by X-rays and CT scanners to know not to fear radiation. I think about it but I do no fear it. Fear is mostly born of ignorance, and I am not ignorant.
