Post Reply
Page 6 of 8  •  Prev 1 ... 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Switch to Forum Live View More nukes for South Carolina - Are they crazy or just stupid?
2 years ago  ::  Apr 04, 2012 - 5:43PM #51
d_p_m
Posts: 9,617

Apr 4, 2012 -- 10:26AM, mountain_man wrote:


Apr 4, 2012 -- 3:13AM, d_p_m wrote:

Don't you know that nuclear reactors are a natural phenomena?


I'm not naive enough to fall for that one.




Actually, MM, I am totally serious. Sources at the bottom.


One of the interesting things about these reactors, is that being natural, they occured in wet or saturated ore or soil, without containment. The fission products were thus introduced directly into the water table - one of the classic "Oh my god, what do we do now, it's melting" scenarios of modern media hype. The end results of the decay chains are identifiable by isotope and isotope ratio, so we can track how far the radioactive material spread. The short answer - not very far at all - a matter of metres.


As we are learning, from places like Fukashima, is that a meltdown is not a total disaster, but rather a bad event that is limited in scope.


Sources for the natural nuclear reactors, some academic, and no 'prank' sites:


www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?i...


geology.about.com/od/geophysics/a/aaoklo...


www.space.com/13795-natural-nuclear-reac...


www.ans.org/pi/np/oklo/


netfiles.uiuc.edu/mragheb/www/NPRE%20402...


apod.nasa.gov/apod/ap021016.html


www.physics.isu.edu/radinf/Files/Oklorea...


oklo.curtin.edu.au/


www.scienceagogo.com/news/20040931225231...




"If you aren't confused by quantum physics, you haven't really understood it."

― Niels Bohr



"One need only watch a few minutes of any Orphan Black episode to see why Tatiana Maslany deserves to win every acting award available."

    —Mark Rozeman, http://www.pastemagazine.com/blogs/lists/2014/07/18-first-time-emmy-nominees-wed-like-to-see.html?a=1
Quick Reply
Cancel
2 years ago  ::  Apr 04, 2012 - 5:53PM #52
d_p_m
Posts: 9,617

Apr 4, 2012 -- 9:46AM, teilhard wrote:


Yes ... "Carbon Dioxide" is insidious and is VERY difficult to contain ... And it has a VERY  VERY  long "half-life" ...




Personally, I tend to worry a bit more about toxic heavy metals released by burning coal.

"If you aren't confused by quantum physics, you haven't really understood it."

― Niels Bohr



"One need only watch a few minutes of any Orphan Black episode to see why Tatiana Maslany deserves to win every acting award available."

    —Mark Rozeman, http://www.pastemagazine.com/blogs/lists/2014/07/18-first-time-emmy-nominees-wed-like-to-see.html?a=1
Quick Reply
Cancel
2 years ago  ::  Apr 04, 2012 - 6:04PM #53
teilhard
Posts: 50,086

Yes ... Those ALSO ... Mercury, etc. ...


Apr 4, 2012 -- 5:53PM, d_p_m wrote:


Apr 4, 2012 -- 9:46AM, teilhard wrote:


Yes ... "Carbon Dioxide" is insidious and is VERY difficult to contain ... And it has a VERY  VERY  long "half-life" ...




Personally, I tend to worry a bit more about toxic heavy metals released by burning coal.





Quick Reply
Cancel
2 years ago  ::  Apr 04, 2012 - 7:07PM #54
mountain_man
Posts: 38,790

Apr 4, 2012 -- 5:43PM, d_p_m wrote:

Actually, MM, I am totally serious. Sources at the bottom....


I'm not naive enough to fall for the false, and irrelevant, comparison. Because what you claim are "nuclear reactors" are natural or not is no reason to support nuclear power generation.

Dave - Just a Man in the Mountains.

I am a Humanist. I believe in a rational philosophy of life, informed by science, inspired by art, and motivated by a desire to do good for its own sake and not by an expectation of a reward or fear of punishment in an afterlife.
Quick Reply
Cancel
2 years ago  ::  Apr 04, 2012 - 8:16PM #55
d_p_m
Posts: 9,617

Apr 4, 2012 -- 7:07PM, mountain_man wrote:


Apr 4, 2012 -- 5:43PM, d_p_m wrote:

Actually, MM, I am totally serious. Sources at the bottom....


I'm not naive enough to fall for the false, and irrelevant, comparison. Because what you claim are "nuclear reactors" are natural or not is no reason to support nuclear power generation.




But the demonstrated immobility of radionucleides in the water table totally demolishes one of the scenarios held up as a reason to fear nuclear power.

"If you aren't confused by quantum physics, you haven't really understood it."

― Niels Bohr



"One need only watch a few minutes of any Orphan Black episode to see why Tatiana Maslany deserves to win every acting award available."

    —Mark Rozeman, http://www.pastemagazine.com/blogs/lists/2014/07/18-first-time-emmy-nominees-wed-like-to-see.html?a=1
Quick Reply
Cancel
2 years ago  ::  Apr 04, 2012 - 8:57PM #56
mountain_man
Posts: 38,790

Apr 4, 2012 -- 8:16PM, d_p_m wrote:

But the demonstrated immobility of radionucleides in the water table totally demolishes one of the scenarios held up as a reason to fear nuclear power.


No, it has not. Radionucleides, immobile or not, in the water table is not the only valid reason to oppose costly, environmentally destructive, and potentially destructive, nuclear power generation.

Dave - Just a Man in the Mountains.

I am a Humanist. I believe in a rational philosophy of life, informed by science, inspired by art, and motivated by a desire to do good for its own sake and not by an expectation of a reward or fear of punishment in an afterlife.
Quick Reply
Cancel
2 years ago  ::  Apr 04, 2012 - 10:24PM #57
d_p_m
Posts: 9,617

Apr 4, 2012 -- 8:57PM, mountain_man wrote:


Apr 4, 2012 -- 8:16PM, d_p_m wrote:

But the demonstrated immobility of radionucleides in the water table totally demolishes one of the scenarios held up as a reason to fear nuclear power.


No, it has not. Radionucleides, immobile or not, in the water table is not the only valid reason to oppose costly, environmentally destructive, and potentially destructive, nuclear power generation.




Nuclear power is probably less disruptive of the environment than any other form of generally deployable base load generation, at equal power levels.


Wind and solar are not suitable for base load power, hydroelectric, unless geography is cooperative can be tremendously disruptive. The Aswan dam, for example, had all sorts of health and environmental effects, some quite bad.


As far as I know, no one has yet looked at the ecological effects of large scale tidal systems. Geothermal is good but geographically limited. Fusion is decades off, as are solar power satellites, burning hydrocarbons is wasteful at best.


Intermittent power sources need either alternate power systems (and if you are going to build them anyway, why not use them), large areas, extra transmission lines, a lot of investment in putting up towers or arrays, etc. In some applications, they can use storage systems instead of alternate power, but then you need storage systems, many of which revolve around the production and eventual scrapping of lead acid batteries, an environmental contamination issue all by itself.


Solar power is at its worst in the winter, with ice and snow, long nights, low angles of incident insolation, and high power demands. It's not so great when you need power, it's cold, it's clouded, snowing, and the day is only eight hours or less, and you have to keep your batteries heated or you will lose a large fraction of their capacity.

"If you aren't confused by quantum physics, you haven't really understood it."

― Niels Bohr



"One need only watch a few minutes of any Orphan Black episode to see why Tatiana Maslany deserves to win every acting award available."

    —Mark Rozeman, http://www.pastemagazine.com/blogs/lists/2014/07/18-first-time-emmy-nominees-wed-like-to-see.html?a=1
Quick Reply
Cancel
2 years ago  ::  Apr 04, 2012 - 10:34PM #58
mountain_man
Posts: 38,790

Apr 4, 2012 -- 10:24PM, d_p_m wrote:

Nuclear power is probably less disruptive of the environment than any other form of generally deployable base load generation, at equal power levels.


Of course it is if you ignore the environmental destruction and toxic waste that it takes to make the fuel and if you ignore the environmental hazards of disposing of the waste fuel. Just those two alone make it the most destructive type of energy production we have. Then you add in the fact that disposing of the facility itself is an environmental nightmare, then add in the proven potential to lay huge chunks of land uninhabitable, and nuclear makes no sense at all.


Wind and solar are not suitable for base load power, hydroelectric, unless geography is cooperative can be tremendously disruptive. The Aswan dam, for example, had all sorts of health and environmental effects, some quite bad.


Not as bad as spreading toxic unclear waste across the land. Not as destructive as ripping up large chunks of the Earth, making huge piles of toxic mine tailings, to get the fuel. I'd rather have a dam than a toxic debris flow from poorly engineered mine tailings.


As far as I know, no one has yet looked at the ecological effects of large scale tidal systems. Geothermal is good but geographically limited. Fusion is decades off, as are solar power satellites, burning hydrocarbons is wasteful at best.


Neither would compare, in scale, to the destruction caused by nuclear.


Intermittent power sources need either alternate power systems....


That's why you employ several different kinds.


If you ignore many problems that nuclear power generation creates, then it's fine. The problem is that I cannot ignore them. Nuclear makes no sense.

Dave - Just a Man in the Mountains.

I am a Humanist. I believe in a rational philosophy of life, informed by science, inspired by art, and motivated by a desire to do good for its own sake and not by an expectation of a reward or fear of punishment in an afterlife.
Quick Reply
Cancel
2 years ago  ::  Apr 05, 2012 - 12:45AM #59
solfeggio
Posts: 8,941

I'm very glad to read that there is a strong emergent anti-nuclear movement in America these days and hope that when President Obama is reelected this November he will pay close attention to what they have to say.


Most reports say that something like 64% of Americans oppose building more nuclear reactors, and this is good to see.

Quick Reply
Cancel
2 years ago  ::  Apr 05, 2012 - 2:09PM #60
mindis1
Posts: 7,520

Apr 4, 2012 -- 3:54PM, mountain_man wrote:


Apr 4, 2012 -- 3:49PM, mindis1 wrote:

Obviously what I asked for is the evidence showing what is “well established” about the “serious harm” to people caused by “even very low levels of ionizing radiation from [nuclear power] plants”. ...


I gave you some.



The reason you (and Solfeggio) are unable to provide any evidence showing “serious harm” to people caused by “even very low levels of ionizing radiation from [nuclear power] plants” is because there is no evidence of such harm.


People who work at nuclear power plants are exposed to about twice the amount of radiation that all people in the US are exposed to from all sources over a year’s time (the “background dose”). This doubling of radiation “background dose” results in an estimated life expectancy loss to these workers of 15 days, according to the committee for Biological Effects of Ionizing Radiation V (BEIR V). The estimated life expectancy loss that results from working in manufacturing jobs is three times that amount: 40 days.  www.physics.isu.edu/radinf/risk.htm


The primary risk associated with radiation exposure is an increased risk of cancer. The degree of risk depends on the amount of radiation dose received, the time period in which the dose is received, and the body parts that receive the radiation dose. Although scientists assume that low-level radiation doses increase one’s risk of cancer, studies have not demonstrated any adverse health effects in individuals who are chronically exposed to small radiation doses over a period of many years (e.g., a total of up to 10,000 mrem above the average background dose).


The increased risk of cancer from occupational radiation exposure is small when compared to the normal cancer rate in today’s society. For example, the current risk of dying from all types of cancer in the United States is approximately 25 percent -- while a person who receives a whole-body radiation dose of 25,000 mrem over his or her lifetime has a risk of dying from cancer of 26 percent -- a one percent increase.  www.nucsafe.com/cms/Radiation+Risks/41.h...


Below 10 rem (which includes occupational and environmental exposures) risks of health effects are either too small to be observed or are non-existent.  www.physics.isu.edu/radinf/hprisk.htm


So, your answer to my question is that you are not able or willing to take in information about nuclear energy/power plants? I must admit that my impression from our previous exchanges is that you are at least unwilling to take in information that is contrary to some belief you have already adopted. ...


I got the exact same from you. 



I have never known you substantiate any facts that are contrary to anything I have ever said. You are welcomed to do so; I have asked you to do so many times. Unlike you, I am able to learn. Until I began learning about nuclear power, I was very opposed to it, because, in my ignorance, I erroneously believed, like you and Solfeggio believe, that nuclear power is inherently unsafe. I also erroneously believed that there are safe and affordable non-nuclear alternatives to fossil fuel energy sources that could provide adequate energy for the world. I now know this to be untrue also.

Quick Reply
Cancel
Page 6 of 8  •  Prev 1 ... 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
 
    Viewing this thread :: 0 registered and 1 guest
    No registered users viewing
    Advertisement

    Beliefnet On Facebook