Slog
News & ArtsMonday, September 12, 2011
Panic The Nuclear Industry's New Normal
Posted by Goldy on Mon, Sep 12, 2011 at 7:19 AM
One worker has been killed and four injured in an explosion this morning at a nuclear waste reprocessing plant in France. The explosion occurred in a furnace that processes low level nuclear waste, and officials insist that no radiation leak has been detected at the plant...
Nonetheless, the accident is likely to amplify emerging concerns over the safety of nuclear power after the nuclear disaster at Fukushima in Japan. Though French public opinion has remained largely favourable to nuclear power, which provides 78 per cent of the country’s electricity, polls showed a growing proportion of people questioning the role of nuclear power after the Japanese catastrophe. The accident follows another incident three years ago when 75kgs of natural uranium was leaked into the environment after maintenance at the Tricastin waste treatment site, also in the south of France.
The government has begun to examine possible scenarios to reduce the country’s dependence on atomic energy, while the opposition Socialist Party has even suggested the possibility of an eventual withdrawal.
It hasn't been a good year for the nuclear industry, and those advocating its dramatic expansion.
1
Goldy, really. This took you how long to start trolling? JMG was on this ages ago.
And, just a suggestion: you might have gone with "...those advocating its explosive growth."
And, just a suggestion: you might have gone with "...those advocating its explosive growth."
2
Nuclear power is not the problem. Keeping aging plants using outdated technology going long after they should have been mothballed is. Try using 21st century tech and new designs instead.
4
Meanwhile, the Old Normal: "Nairobi pipeline blaze 'kills at least 63'"
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-africa-1…
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-africa-1…
6
Well, to be fair, JMG is three hours ahead of us.
But honestly - why does everyone get so defensive about these nuclear power posts? If you love the technology, fine. There's no need to be a reactionary bore about it.
But honestly - why does everyone get so defensive about these nuclear power posts? If you love the technology, fine. There's no need to be a reactionary bore about it.
7
Catalina @6, Why indeed?
I suppose that there are those who believe that nuclear power is too important to risk an informed public debate.
I suppose that there are those who believe that nuclear power is too important to risk an informed public debate.
8
There isn't much in the way of "informed public debate" after weeks or months of media scare-mongering and hype. Just look at the way the country went nuts, and has continued to be nuts, after the 9-11 catastrophe.
10
Nuclear Power is the primary evidence that we on the Left can be as anti-science as the Right. The anti-nuclear position is pure religion. It's actually been a much better year for nuclear than you would think. A worst case scenario in Japan; where is the massive death toll from nuclear poisoning? On any rational basis, fossil fuels present larger risks in terms of public health, worker safety, and global climate change. But hey, Bonnie Raitt and Jackson Browne told us the truth back in 78.
11
Fukushima Radioactive Rain falls in Toronto,Canada at DANGEROUS levels (20 000 CPM)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l-xqmOMhC…
The Japanese government has been incinerating cesium tainted dirt and other material for a while now, releasing the smoke into the atmosphere....where it is settling right down on us. I hope you have a Geiger counter when the rainy season starts.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l-xqmOMhC…
The Japanese government has been incinerating cesium tainted dirt and other material for a while now, releasing the smoke into the atmosphere....where it is settling right down on us. I hope you have a Geiger counter when the rainy season starts.
12
@10: No it's proof that the left is just as easily susceptible to massive public-relations campaigns to placate the public and allow huge government-corporate engineering and construction interest to continue unimpeded, while the entirety of the human risk is borne by the misinformed public.
Japan is dealing with more than 100,000 permanent refugees, and a contaminated food supply on both land and sea, and what promises to be significant health impacts with time, much as we saw in the aftermath of Chernobyl.
Maybe if you quit jerking off over engineering prowess, you apologists would confront the dire consequences of a human choice about both energy consumption, and energy sources.
Also, please let me know when the Chernobyl crisis has ceased being a significant and continuing problem and human health threat.
THEN maybe you can pretend Fukushima is a minor concern.
Japan is dealing with more than 100,000 permanent refugees, and a contaminated food supply on both land and sea, and what promises to be significant health impacts with time, much as we saw in the aftermath of Chernobyl.
Maybe if you quit jerking off over engineering prowess, you apologists would confront the dire consequences of a human choice about both energy consumption, and energy sources.
Also, please let me know when the Chernobyl crisis has ceased being a significant and continuing problem and human health threat.
THEN maybe you can pretend Fukushima is a minor concern.
13
@12: Chernobyl is well-contained, and is not a major threat to nearby persons. It's currently a wildlife sanctuary of sorts; migratory birds seem to suffer from the residual radiation, but most other organisms are doing well.
14
@13 - My favorite is the new fungus they found on the reactor that metabolizes the radiation. They call the process radiosynthesis, and it blows my mind.
15
@13: Chernobyl is "well-contained?" What the fuck are you talking about!? It continues to be a very serious threat to the region.
Where I live (reality), Chernobyl has NOT been cleaned up, and has never been contained. The temporary containment structure built haphazardly over the reactor has massive leaks, and is not designed to last for the tens of thousands of years required, and is at risk of collapse in severe weather or earthquakes, which would again cause a significant release of radioactivity.
The current sarcophagus over Chernobyl was built as fast as possible, and to last only a couple decades, during which time humans could develop technology to approach and remove the melted fuel and contaminated material on site.
Humans have yet to develop such technological capabilities.
Construction of the New Safe Confinement was supposed to be completed by 2005 to prevent a catastrophic collapse of the existing tentative structure, which already underwent significant very difficult repairs to prevent imminent collapse of the main roof beam. The new structure has yet to be constructed. The current timetable puts it more than a decade behind schedule, and still lacking the necessary funding, which the Ukraine is unable to afford.
95% of the core inventory remains tentatively "contained" within the rubble and the fragile sarcophagus. Releases of even miniscule portions of that inventory through water leeching (the sarcophagus is not water-tight) or through an event such as a massive dust release due to roof collapse would be catastrophic radiological events.
So once again: let me know when humankind successfully contains the Chernobyl site, or develops the technology to approach and remove the radioactive material on site.
Also: let us know when the 11 other currently-operating RBMK-1000 reactors identical to Chernobyl Unit 4 are finally shut down.
Otherwise, shut the fuck up you ignorant buffoon.
More...
Where I live (reality), Chernobyl has NOT been cleaned up, and has never been contained. The temporary containment structure built haphazardly over the reactor has massive leaks, and is not designed to last for the tens of thousands of years required, and is at risk of collapse in severe weather or earthquakes, which would again cause a significant release of radioactivity.
The current sarcophagus over Chernobyl was built as fast as possible, and to last only a couple decades, during which time humans could develop technology to approach and remove the melted fuel and contaminated material on site.
Humans have yet to develop such technological capabilities.
Construction of the New Safe Confinement was supposed to be completed by 2005 to prevent a catastrophic collapse of the existing tentative structure, which already underwent significant very difficult repairs to prevent imminent collapse of the main roof beam. The new structure has yet to be constructed. The current timetable puts it more than a decade behind schedule, and still lacking the necessary funding, which the Ukraine is unable to afford.
95% of the core inventory remains tentatively "contained" within the rubble and the fragile sarcophagus. Releases of even miniscule portions of that inventory through water leeching (the sarcophagus is not water-tight) or through an event such as a massive dust release due to roof collapse would be catastrophic radiological events.
So once again: let me know when humankind successfully contains the Chernobyl site, or develops the technology to approach and remove the radioactive material on site.
Also: let us know when the 11 other currently-operating RBMK-1000 reactors identical to Chernobyl Unit 4 are finally shut down.
Otherwise, shut the fuck up you ignorant buffoon.
16
Let's not replace our excessive reliance on one dysfunctional technology with excessive reliance on another dysfunctional technology.
When a nuclear reactor or processing system fails, the effectively permanent contamination of countryside for a radius measured in the tens of miles is a likely outcome. I don't believe the failure mode of any other technology in use today comes close to this. Just one operational mistake, one technology or material failure, and/or one unanticipated natural disaster is all that is required. Just one.
When a nuclear reactor or processing system fails, the effectively permanent contamination of countryside for a radius measured in the tens of miles is a likely outcome. I don't believe the failure mode of any other technology in use today comes close to this. Just one operational mistake, one technology or material failure, and/or one unanticipated natural disaster is all that is required. Just one.
17
@14: I know, right?
@15: The New Safe Confinement structure is on schedule to be completed in 2015. There has been no substantial escape of radiation from the Chernobyl Exclusion Zone in recent times; the worst releases have been light doses of radiation kicked up by wildfires. It is not a serious danger at this time. The remaining RBMK reactors should be shut down, and the international community is pressuring their operators to do so.
You may stop your fearmongering now.
@15: The New Safe Confinement structure is on schedule to be completed in 2015. There has been no substantial escape of radiation from the Chernobyl Exclusion Zone in recent times; the worst releases have been light doses of radiation kicked up by wildfires. It is not a serious danger at this time. The remaining RBMK reactors should be shut down, and the international community is pressuring their operators to do so.
You may stop your fearmongering now.
18
@16 - I'm totally trolling here, but read up on the Three Gorges Dam for a super-extreme case of mind-boggling tradeoffs. Essentially, China took a ridiculously large pollution hit up front (Relocating 1.3M people? Ecosystems? Earthquakes??) in exchange for long term low-pollution power. And if that dam fails...
Was it a good tradeoff? I really don't know. It definitely counts as effectively permanent contamination of a countryside for ~400 sq. mi.
Was it a good tradeoff? I really don't know. It definitely counts as effectively permanent contamination of a countryside for ~400 sq. mi.
19
@2
Exactly. We simply need to close all the world's nuclear plants and build new ones. We can pay for them with rainbow glitter and unicorn farts.
Exactly. We simply need to close all the world's nuclear plants and build new ones. We can pay for them with rainbow glitter and unicorn farts.
21
@17: I told you to let me know when Chernobyl had been successfully contained and cleaned up, and when said reactors had been shut down.
Neither has occurred.
I suggest you commence with the shutting the fuck up.
You are an anal-cranial accessory.
Neither has occurred.
I suggest you commence with the shutting the fuck up.
You are an anal-cranial accessory.
22
@21: What is Chernobyl doing to anyone? Has there been a major release of radiation during recent history? Is there any reason to believe that it is a serious hazard to people outside the exclusion zone?
The worst thing that Chernobyl does today is make a chunk of land uninhabitable. And hey, the exclusion zone has turned into a pretty decent wildlife refuge. Please untwist your panties, take a chill pill, and leave the debate up to us rational people.
We're hardwired to be easily scared; it's better, in terms of evolutionary fitness, to mistake grass rustling in the wind for a tiger than to do the converse. Now that we're sapient creatures, we need to approach complex situations rationally and levelheadedly.
The worst thing that Chernobyl does today is make a chunk of land uninhabitable. And hey, the exclusion zone has turned into a pretty decent wildlife refuge. Please untwist your panties, take a chill pill, and leave the debate up to us rational people.
We're hardwired to be easily scared; it's better, in terms of evolutionary fitness, to mistake grass rustling in the wind for a tiger than to do the converse. Now that we're sapient creatures, we need to approach complex situations rationally and levelheadedly.
23
@22: Keep telling yourself that.
You're the kind of person who would look at a mass grave and say: "hey, good news, we've got fertilizer!"
Many thousands of people, children in particular, continue to suffer (sometimes very severely) from Chernobyl, and that you would make-believe it's all turned into a unicorn preserve is insulting, disgusting, and vicious.
You are an ignorant fucking idiot, and you really have no idea what you're talking about.
You're the kind of person who would look at a mass grave and say: "hey, good news, we've got fertilizer!"
Many thousands of people, children in particular, continue to suffer (sometimes very severely) from Chernobyl, and that you would make-believe it's all turned into a unicorn preserve is insulting, disgusting, and vicious.
You are an ignorant fucking idiot, and you really have no idea what you're talking about.
24
@23: The United Nations has conducted a great deal of research on the subject. According to their reports, there has been a statistically significant increase in thyroid cancer (highly treatable and with a 92% 30-year survival rate), but not in leukemia rates, total cancer rates, or rates of birth defects. Really, the most worrisome effect today is that minisatellite mutation rates have increased in affected populations.
And no, the Chernobyl Exclusion Zone has not become a unicorn preserve. It HAS, however, turned into a refuge for the critically-endangered Przewalski's Horse, which has thrived there since being introduced.
If you think that Chernobyl is a terrible danger today, show me the evidence. The local people suffer more from a lack of infrastructure than from the radiation.
And no, the Chernobyl Exclusion Zone has not become a unicorn preserve. It HAS, however, turned into a refuge for the critically-endangered Przewalski's Horse, which has thrived there since being introduced.
If you think that Chernobyl is a terrible danger today, show me the evidence. The local people suffer more from a lack of infrastructure than from the radiation.
25
I'm probably going to regret jumping into this and get called a fasco-capitalist in the pocket of the nuclear industry, but I thought some people might like to hear a little more about @11, in case they were concerned. I'm a health physicist, a so-called specialist in radiation safety with an admittedly small 3 years of experience + a master's degree in the field.
As the fellow with the geiger counter so aptly demonstrates, what he has there is a beta emitter. Geiger counters don't accurately estimate the dose rate from a beta emitter - they overestimate by anywhere from a factor of 2-100 depending upon the isotopes in question. Based on the date it was taken, we can probably say it's not iodine raining out, but as an example, some measurements I took last year showed a GM overestimating by about a factor of 10, bringing his rough "true" count estimate down to about 2200 dpm.
That's still a lot, but you should also consider the area he swiped. That solar panel is something like what, 2mx3m or roughly 60,000 sq cm. This gives roughly 3 dpm / 100 sq cm. For comparison, in a lab, we are only required to decontaminate a surface if it's above 250 dpm / 100 sq cm. I would definitely say it's a good idea to be more conservative in a non-lab setting, but he's nearly 100x below our regulatory limit... By way of comparison, the radiation dose limit for the general public is only 50x below the regulatory limit for an industrial setting.
So. This is what I can take away from watching a video. I'm extremely curious about what he might have, and would love to get a sample for radioanalysis. It would be extremely interesting, as my subspecialty is radioecology - the fate & effects of radiation in the environment. Barring that though, those are my thoughts.
More...
As the fellow with the geiger counter so aptly demonstrates, what he has there is a beta emitter. Geiger counters don't accurately estimate the dose rate from a beta emitter - they overestimate by anywhere from a factor of 2-100 depending upon the isotopes in question. Based on the date it was taken, we can probably say it's not iodine raining out, but as an example, some measurements I took last year showed a GM overestimating by about a factor of 10, bringing his rough "true" count estimate down to about 2200 dpm.
That's still a lot, but you should also consider the area he swiped. That solar panel is something like what, 2mx3m or roughly 60,000 sq cm. This gives roughly 3 dpm / 100 sq cm. For comparison, in a lab, we are only required to decontaminate a surface if it's above 250 dpm / 100 sq cm. I would definitely say it's a good idea to be more conservative in a non-lab setting, but he's nearly 100x below our regulatory limit... By way of comparison, the radiation dose limit for the general public is only 50x below the regulatory limit for an industrial setting.
So. This is what I can take away from watching a video. I'm extremely curious about what he might have, and would love to get a sample for radioanalysis. It would be extremely interesting, as my subspecialty is radioecology - the fate & effects of radiation in the environment. Barring that though, those are my thoughts.
26
@24: Bitch please.
The IAEA and the west in particular has fought tooth and nail to dismiss any research coming out of Russia, and that's on top of the reticence of the USSR early on to release any information about the disaster.
The effects and the death toll has certainly been in the tens of thousands.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chernobyl_d…
The IAEA and the west in particular has fought tooth and nail to dismiss any research coming out of Russia, and that's on top of the reticence of the USSR early on to release any information about the disaster.
The effects and the death toll has certainly been in the tens of thousands.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chernobyl_d…
27
@26: So when I refer to actual research performed by the UN, you insist that it must all be fabricated or otherwise incorrect. This is the same argument used by climate change deniers, and it's really not logical or scientific, but rather exposes a blind devotion to a preconceived conclusion.
It's an accepted fact that people who were exposed to radiation at the time of the meltdown are at higher risk for cancer; the worldwide excess cancer death toll due to the Chernobyl disaster has been estimated at about 27,000. Be that as it may, the Chernobyl ruins are not at this time a serious danger to nearby persons.
It's an accepted fact that people who were exposed to radiation at the time of the meltdown are at higher risk for cancer; the worldwide excess cancer death toll due to the Chernobyl disaster has been estimated at about 27,000. Be that as it may, the Chernobyl ruins are not at this time a serious danger to nearby persons.
28
@27: No, the IAEA estimates in particularly have been particularly low. The UN report included work by the WHO and others, which has still been heavily criticized by outside groups, and is significantly lower than estimates both measured and predicted by the Russians themselves.
There is significant, measurable evidence of Chernobyl impacts. But Western governments and the IAEA in particular have abused the inherent difficulty of proving causation to minimize as much as possible what they claim are the "supposed" impacts of Chernobyl. The IAEA's claims are particularly suspect, because their core mission is advocating for nuclear energy and technology. They are advocates, not unbiased scientific observers. And unfortunately, much of their advocacy informs the UN's work, and the limitations of the people they studied. Of course, many of the people exposed, and quite a large number of the liquidators, were never tracked by the USSR, and hence have never been studied by the UN.
And I put almost no faith in the UNSCEAR report, which arrived at the laughable figure of 62.
And until the NSC has been completed over the Chernobyl site, the ruins absolutely are a serious danger to nearby persons if the existing sarcophagus were to collapse. Is it stands today, there is no minimal continuing new danger beyond existing contamination, but that is only as long as it stands. Until the NSC is finished, and the existing sarcophagus is dismantled and hopefully decommissioning of the reactor occurs, the Chernobyl site continues to pose a threat should the situation change.
To many of the UN-affiliated studies, these people and these impacts simply do not exist:
http://mediastorm.com/publication/cherno…
Instead, UNSCEAR depends on the "causal problem" and brushes them all aside.
More...
There is significant, measurable evidence of Chernobyl impacts. But Western governments and the IAEA in particular have abused the inherent difficulty of proving causation to minimize as much as possible what they claim are the "supposed" impacts of Chernobyl. The IAEA's claims are particularly suspect, because their core mission is advocating for nuclear energy and technology. They are advocates, not unbiased scientific observers. And unfortunately, much of their advocacy informs the UN's work, and the limitations of the people they studied. Of course, many of the people exposed, and quite a large number of the liquidators, were never tracked by the USSR, and hence have never been studied by the UN.
And I put almost no faith in the UNSCEAR report, which arrived at the laughable figure of 62.
And until the NSC has been completed over the Chernobyl site, the ruins absolutely are a serious danger to nearby persons if the existing sarcophagus were to collapse. Is it stands today, there is no minimal continuing new danger beyond existing contamination, but that is only as long as it stands. Until the NSC is finished, and the existing sarcophagus is dismantled and hopefully decommissioning of the reactor occurs, the Chernobyl site continues to pose a threat should the situation change.
To many of the UN-affiliated studies, these people and these impacts simply do not exist:
http://mediastorm.com/publication/cherno…
Instead, UNSCEAR depends on the "causal problem" and brushes them all aside.
Advertisement
Most Commented on Slog
-
Hating People Doesn't Make Them Thinner by Jen Graves
-
Los Angeles Gay Bar Bans Bachelorette Parties Until Marriage Equality Is Attained by David Schmader
-
Fill in the Blank by Grant Brissey
-
This Reminds Me of the Great Calculator Scare of the Late '70s/Early '80s by David Schmader
-
Idiot Tries to Defend Bigoted Anti-Gay-Marriage Preacher on Anderson Cooper by Paul Constant
-
Six Moms with Too Much Time on Their Hands and a Shitty Website Decide to Fight Gay Superheroes by Paul Constant
-
What the Hell Is Wrong With Seattle's Pride Parade? by Dominic Holden
-
The Saturday Morning News by Unpaid Intern
-
Why Mayor McGinn's Wife Canceled Her Family's Seattle Times Subscription by Eli Sanders
-
The Sunday Morning News by Unpaid Intern
RSS
Facebook
Twitter
Comments (28) RSS