Environment & Energy
Related: About this forum
Gundersen: 26 nuclear plants in area where Hurricane Sandy likely to hit —
If power lost, only plan is to let spent fuel pools heat up… no generators to pump in water (AUDIO)
http://enenews.com/gundersen-26-nuclear-plants-area-hurricane-sandy-hit-power-lost-only-plan-spent-fuel-pools-heat-diesel-generators-pump-water-audio
Transcript Summary of an excerpt from the October 28, 2012 podcast by Fairewinds Energy Education:
You’ll hear in the next 2 days, “We’ve safely shutdown the plant”
What Fukushima taught us is that doesn’t stop the decay heat
You need the diesels to keep the reactors cool
26 plants in the East Coast are in the area where Sandy is likely to hit
Fuel pools not cooled by diesels, no one wanted to buy them
If recent refuel, hot fuel will throw off more and more moisture from pool
Reactor buildings not meant to handle the high humidity
Fuel pool liner not really designed to approach boiling water, may unzip if water gets too hot
A lot of problems with allowing fuel pool to over
Need water in around 2 days if hot fuel in pool
The only fall-back if power is lost is to let fuel pools heat up
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
dixiegrrrrl
(60,010 posts)Oh...now I remember.
bananas
(27,509 posts)Even as nuclear fuel meltdown was in full swing at Fukushima, Adelaide University's Professor Barry Brook reassured us that:
"There is no credible risk of a serious accident... Those spreading FUD at the moment will be the ones left with egg on their faces. I am happy to be quoted forever after on the above if I am wrong ... but I won't be."
More from Barry Brook on Fukushima:
"There was and will *not* be any significant release of radioactivity."
FBaggins
(26,743 posts)Yet for as far off as that was... Arnie was farther off.
But you won't find anyone rabidly defending Brook's errors today. You would have no trouble getting several antis her to claim with a straight face that Arnie was right all along. 
bananas
(27,509 posts)FBaggins
(26,743 posts)Nobody "attacked" him.
But I'll also point out that he was proven wrong.
AtheistCrusader
(33,982 posts)Are we all going to die yet?
caraher
(6,278 posts)That was either my radiation monitor or crickets...
FBaggins
(26,743 posts)(Not you of course Kolesar)
There were far more people killed by the panic/worry of the evacuation from Fukushima than the reactor radiation killed (still zero) - and this guy (and his ilk) did everything they could to contribute to that irrational fear (all to line their own pockets). Now he decides that the people in the path of Sandy don't have enough to worry about - so he invents something new to fear.
This guy just makes stuff up as he goes along. Is he going to take responsibility for the family that dies in the storm trying to run away from a reactor that poses no actual risk to them?
Let's clarify a few things for those who actually care about the facts:
It's false to say that fuel pools are not cooled by backup diesels. It would be true to say that the regulations don't require them to be... so some aren't. But not because "no one wanted to buy them" (which is ridiculous)... it's because they aren't needed.
What Fukushima taught us is that doesn’t stop the decay heat
Lol! Way to get "Fukushima" in the audience's mind early... but we already knew how decay heat works (unlikely Arnie and so many of his followers who kept insisting that active fission was continuing/recurring for weeks after shutdown).
You need the diesels to keep the reactors cool
The reactors yes, the fuel pools... no.
If recent refuel, hot fuel will throw off more and more moisture from pool - Reactor buildings not meant to handle the high humidity
No idea where he thinks he's going with that. Humidity is dangerous now? Reactor buildings were not "meant to handle" termites either... but that doesn't mean they can't.
Fuel pool liner not really designed to approach boiling water, may unzip if water gets too hot
What a crock. This isn't a vinyl liner in a swimming pool. It's stainless steel over feet of reinforced concrete. Presumably "unzip" means that some seam between two steel plates could open up. So what? Are we supposed to believe that once hot water gets past stainless steel it will magically eat through feet of reinforced concrete?
Need water in around 2 days if hot fuel in pool
That would have to be much "hotter" fuel than they put in SFPs (and more of it). Each pool is a little different and it depends on how much fuel is already in there, but it's far more likely that we're talking a week or more before a SFP would need additional water. And here's the key... that isn't a big deal. See below.
The only fall-back if power is lost is to let fuel pools heat up
And that's the conclusion he wants to leave you with... but it's a flat out lie. That is not the only fallback. All they have to do is add water (within a few days), and they do have "fall-back" plans for that.
Listen folks... this isn't rocket science. It's just running a hose to a swimming pool. The reason it was a big deal at Fukushima is that they had multiple meltdowns in the cores and significant radiation releases. They couldn't just walk up the stairs and run a fire hose to the pool and it took days (due to national infrastructure damage) to even get equipment that could reach the pool from outside.
But anyone who can connect a garden hose and start a lawn mower can hook up a P250 (or similar) and pump water (or just use a fire hydrant).
This is irresponsible fear mongering and he should be ashamed of himself.
wtmusic
(39,166 posts)is an exercise in futility?
Thanks for giving it the college try anyway. 
bananas
(27,509 posts)"What an irresponsible nutcase"
"a reactor that poses no actual risk"
BWAHAHAHA! BWAHAHAHA! BWAHAHAHA! BWAHAHAHA!
Denial - it's not just a river in Egypt!
FBaggins
(26,743 posts)...this guy would find a way to imply that they could cause a nuclear meltdown.
And you would set aside all rationality and spin for him. "I've been through the NRC documents and they have NO PLAN for killer bees!!! They don't even CHECK to see if reactor opperators are alergic to bee stings!"
dbackjon
(6,578 posts)Man in Phoenix fell to his death while trying to escape He had been hiking - he and two companions were attacked by a swarm.
Two balled up, were stung 300+ times, helo evacuated.
RobertEarl
(13,685 posts)Prove it. We know radiation has been spewing for years now and you can prove it hasn't killed anyone this week?
Prove your claim or go fly a kite at the gates of Fukushima for a day, you think it is so safe.
I can NOT fucking believe we have people on here, still, totally disregarding the deadly effects of radiation and showing their utter denial of the science that tells us the shit kills constantly.
My gawd we are fucking doomed.
dbackjon
(6,578 posts)Show me someone that was killed by nuclear energy this week.
RobertEarl
(13,685 posts)Following your logic. Which states: nuclear radiation does not kill.
Nuclear radiation does kill people. Are you in denial of that basic science?
XemaSab
(60,212 posts)Would you say that trees are inherently evil?
RobertEarl
(13,685 posts)My gawd, how many people here are still in denial of the fact that radiation kills people?
XemaSab
(60,212 posts)WE ARE LEGION.
dbackjon
(6,578 posts)If so many are dying, find me a link, a story, a name.
RobertEarl
(13,685 posts)Read this link and get back to me:
A Public Service Announcement Regarding PLUTONIUM
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=584287
Radiation has spread around the world
FBaggins
(26,743 posts)As opposed to nuclear weapons testing?
If you don't know... you don't have any right to pretend you've educated anyone.
If you do know... then you're intentionally deceiving people with your post.
It's either ignorance or deception. There is no third alternative.
RobertEarl
(13,685 posts)Do you know?
The best info I have is that AFTER Fukushima they found more plutonium on the ground. The science indicates that plutonium came from Fukushima. Since there were no nuclear bombs blown up in that time frame.
A denial of that is either ignorance or deception.
Now, where is the other poster who was, as far as i can tell, trying to make the case that nuclear radiation does not kill. Why don't you tell him now: Radiation does kill. Either tell the truth of plead ignorance or deception. What's it gonna be FB?
FBaggins
(26,743 posts)You've been told more than once.
The release from Fukushima was estimated to be in the grams/ounces range... while the existing atmospheric plutonium from weapons testing is measures in tons.
The best info I have is that AFTER Fukushima they found more plutonium on the ground.
They really didn't. There were a couple places right by the rectors where the measured levels might have exceeded the already-existing (from Hiroshima/etc) levels. Elsewhere in the world, the only real way they were able to identify any plutonium from Fukushima was by isotope proportions... but the levels were essentially indistinguishable from the range of already-existing plutonium contamination ranges.
Now, where is the other poster who was, as far as i can tell, trying to make the case that nuclear radiation does not kill. Why don't you tell him now: Radiation does kill.
Because he's right and you're wrong?
Radiation in large amounts can kill. But apart from Chernobyl, there isn't enough evidence to say that radiation from reactors (particularly these reactors) is killing anyone.
As you've ignored probably a dozen times, an alpha particle from a manmade source is no different from an alpha particle from an entirely natural source. Alpha radiation from plutonium is just as safe/deadly (assuming comparable amounts) as alpha radiation from the radon you're breathing in right now. There are larger differences between natural exposure levels in difference cities than the dose level the civilian population in Japan received from Fukushima. Since there is no correlation between higher related death rates in those areas than in areas of much lower natural radiation, we cannot conclude that "radiation does kill" regardless of level. All of the scientific evidence to date points to a threshold below which it's possible that radiation has an impact, but one that cannot be measured.
This, of course, is why health organizations set acceptable exposure levels well above "NO RADIATION ALLOWED!!!"
RobertEarl
(13,685 posts)You are still on the kick that radiation is safe. When nearly all the medical experts say it causes cancers and all kinds of sickness.
Yet here you are again trying to sell some lies of the nuke industry.
Do you even care one bit for the people whose lives have been ruined? Care one bit for the people who have been forced to leave their lands around Chernobyl and Fukushima because even the nuke industry has to admit their escaped radiation kills?
My God. How do you sleep at night?
FBaggins
(26,743 posts)If "all the medical experts" say that... why can you only cite the nutcases who are not medical experts on radiation? Why is it the Busby's and Gundersen's and some long-retired pediatrician and not members of the health physics society (you know... the actual experts on the health impacts of radiation)???
If it's ALL the medical experts... why can't you cite ANY medical experts?
On edit - Since I know you'll just go nuts trying to spin that... nobody is saying that HIGH levels of radiation can't create cancers. We're talking about doses in the range actually caused by Fukushima or normally-operating reactors.
RobertEarl
(13,685 posts)Do you even care about the people who were forced from their land because nuclear radiation KILLS.
FBaggins
(26,743 posts)I care quite a bit more about them than you do.
Unlike low levels of radiation, irrational fear actually does kill people. There are confirmed deaths caused by the panic/fear of the radiation from those reactors (and any number of deaths caused by turning off their other reactors resulting in power shortages). Panic/fear that shills like Gundersen spread to line their own pockets. Heck... there could have been people who died going out in Sandy when they became more afraid of what they were being told was just like what happened at Fukushima than they were afraid of an actual killer storm.
I prefer the truth. Arnie should try it some time.
RobertEarl
(13,685 posts)Last edited Mon Nov 5, 2012, 09:52 PM - Edit history (1)
People's lives have been ruined. If radiation was safe, why did they have to move? Yes, people have been forced to leave their lands from around Chernobyl and Fukushima because even the nuke industry admits their escaped radiation kills.
My God. How do you sleep at night?
FBaggins
(26,743 posts)Yet time and time again you prove that faith misplaced.
Do you really see no scale at all between "kills" and "safe"?
Thyroid cancer is rarely deadly (particularly when they're looking for it)... but isn't a 5% increase in the chances of getting it (much higher than reality of course) a reason to leave an area during a nuclear crisis? You really think that the only time people evacuate is if "staying here = dying!" ???
And once the active release period is over and contamination levels are identified. Can't you see the possibility of restricting access to areas that would increase risk if you stayed there 24/7 for a couple years?
You can't possibly be that dense. I retain the belief that there's almost a 50/50 chance that you're actually a nuclear proponent just trying to make the anti-nuclear crowd look irrational. There's simply no reason to build a strawman when we've got you walking around adopting the wildest errant positions.
So I guess thanks are in order!
All you have is bullshit. And know that you are the failure here. You have turned so many people away from nukes all on your own that I congratulate you.
Why did they evacuate the lands around Chernobyl and Fukushima?
You can't even give a straight science based answer to that all you do is spread bullshit.
XemaSab
(60,212 posts)When I lived in Oakhurst, California, we couldn't drink the tap water because there was uranium in the water. It was naturally occurring and it came from the ground water. Radiation is everywhere. You're more likely to get cancer at the dentist's office than you are to get cancer from nuclear energy.
But you already know this. You're just looking to stir the shit.
RobertEarl
(13,685 posts)Did they make you evacuate the area? Do they have plans for evacuation in the event of uranium in tap water? No. Of course not.
But they do for nuclear radiation. So, you see there is quite the difference. And your tap water didn't end up flying around the world like the radiation from Chernobyl and Fukushima.
XemaSab
(60,212 posts)Thanks for playing.
You remind me of Lefty Mom for some reason....
XemaSab
(60,212 posts)
LeftyMom
(49,212 posts)I make better tacos.
XemaSab
(60,212 posts)Power of!
Anacardiaceae!
GliderGuider
(21,088 posts)Gesundheit...
Actually, for a second there I thought you were referring to AnaKardashian, Kim's black-sheep half-sister...
LeftyMom
(49,212 posts)caraher
(6,278 posts)You've proven repeatedly that you have no interest in understanding the facts about how radiation harms humans, what environmental sources of radiation exist, and the magnitudes of quantities of radioactive materials and radiation exposures. Your posts give opposition to nuclear power a bad name by lending support to the contention that opponents of nuclear power are scientifically ignorant.
Nihil
(13,508 posts)> Your posts give opposition to nuclear power a bad name by lending support to the
> contention that opponents of nuclear power are scientifically ignorant.
I think that's why the rational opponents tend to drift away when the double-down
on wilful ignorance kicks in ...
:shrug;
RobertEarl
(13,685 posts)And each time all you have is ... bullshit. You never post any science. I will invite you once again to post some science. You won't, you never do. All you post is bullshit.
But here is an out for you. The standing question is: If radiation does not kill, why have they evacuated the lands around Chernobyl and Fukushima?
So, tell us. If radiation is so safe, why did they make people move away?
PamW
(1,825 posts)Here's the SCIENCE!!
There's about 10 metric tonnes of Plutonium in the environment, and practically ALL of it came from atmospheric nuclear weapons testing in the 1940s and 1950s.
However, even then; the amount of radiation exposure that one gets from weapons testing fallout is LESS than 0.03% of natural background exposure.
http://www.umich.edu/~radinfo/introduction/radrus.htm
Only Chernobyl and Fukushima released Plutonium; and from the radiation measurements, the amount from Fukushima is about 2 grams.
You say radiation kills; but germs also kill. You going to go around dousing everything with alcohol???
We evolved in a sea of natural background radiation, and we have a radiation damage repair mechanism just like we have an immune system.
It's like an immune system for radiation. So you can't say that every tiny bit of radiation kills or does damage. The vast majority of the damage is repaired.
From scientists at Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory:
http://newscenter.lbl.gov/news-releases/2011/12/20/low-dose-radiation/
“Our data show that at lower doses of ionizing radiation, DNA repair mechanisms work much better than at higher doses,” says Mina Bissell, a world-renowned breast cancer researcher with Berkeley Lab’s Life Sciences Division. “This non-linear DNA damage response casts doubt on the general assumption that any amount of ionizing radiation is harmful and additive.”
Although we use the LNT - linear no-threshold model for devising regulations because of its simplicity; the scientific consensus is that the radiation damage response is actually more complicated than the LNT model, and we don't use LNT when we want to know what the damage actually is.
PamW
RobertEarl
(13,685 posts)I looked at the Michigan site and it is full of nuke-suck-up-lying assholes. They are, to put it mildly: Nuke whores.
Anyway, your science is as clear as mud.
So, here's your big chance at the big question of the day:
Why have they evacuated the people from their ancestral lands from around Chernobyl and Fukushima?
FBaggins
(26,743 posts)You're just exceptionally blind. Even when things have been simplified dramatically.
Why have they evacuated the people from their ancestral lands from around Chernobyl and Fukushima?
Allow me to simplify the answer for you again.
It isn't because if people went there they would die. Do you admit that you think that is the reason?
If people stayed there they would not become ill?
Really?!?!?!? You think they moved all those people for no good reason?
You just outed yourself again. You are the best anti-nuke program running. I just love it when you post that crazy stuff.
Here is a sample: I asked days ago this question:
Why have they evacuated the people from around Chernobyl and Fukushima?
You finally answered
It isn't because if people went there they would die.
What a lame ass answer. Of course that is the best you could do because the truth that it kills would make you fold up your tent and slink away, and you just love spreading bs here.
RobertEarl says:
I looked at the Michigan site and it is full of nuke-suck-up-lying assholes.
Really??? What evidence do you have for such a charge other than they dispute your statements?
If you want to say something like that; then you really should provide some evidence that the people are lying.
The site is the University of Michigan; a great University where people learn what the truth is; which may require them to lay down their ill-conceived, ill-founded notions that are merely the result of one's ignorance and stupidity. The University is maintaining a website so that people can learn the truth; and some would rather disparage the truth for their own petty, parochial reasons rather than learn.
Do you really know what you are talking about. Have you ever measured the amount of radiation due to natural sources and due to fallout and compared the two? Well, I have!. The results at the University of Michigan site are ACCURATE.
Besides, if you read the posting, which I doubt that you did; the University of Michigan is NOT the source for those figures.
Those figures come from the NCRP - National Council on Radiation Protection. The NCRP is a group of well-respected, expert, scientists that was chartered by the US Congress to advise them on issues related to radiation and its effects.
As to why people are evacuated; that is just being prudent, at best; and is a result of needless panic at worst.
Prof. Richard Muller, a Professor of Physics at the University of California -Berkeley and author of the well received book, "Physics for Future Presidents", wrote an article about the effects of Fukushima:
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10000872396390444772404577589270444059332.html
The International Commission on Radiological Protection recommends evacuation of a locality whenever the excess radiation dose exceeds .1 rem per year. But that's one-third of what I call the "Denver dose." Applied strictly, the ICRP standard would seem to require the immediate evacuation of Denver.
and
The "hot spots" in Japan that frightened many people showed radiation at the level of .1 rem, a number quite small compared with the average excess dose that people happily live with in Denver.
The "hot spots" in Japan that have been quarantined have radiation levels one-third of those of Denver.
That pretty much blows out of the water your ill-considered contention that people would die if they entered the "hot spot" areas. People are living quite nicely in Denver at three times the radiation exposure level of the "hot spots" in Japan and not dying.
There's a deficiency in your education relative to those of us who are scientists. You never learned how much radiation we receive by just being on this planet, independent of nuclear power and nuclear weapons. You have no idea what constitute natural levels, which are responsible for the bulk of one's radiation exposure, and the extremely marginal increase due to nuclear power and nuclear weapons. You probably "think" ( term used loosely ) that the environment would be pristine and radiation free without the activities of Man.
Of course, any grade school child who has learned about "Carbon-14 dating" knows that to be false. The reason we can "Carbon-14 date" the ancient Egyptians and know how old they are is that they were eating food that was slightly radioactive from a radioactive environment. That radioactivity had nothing to do with nuclear power nor nuclear weapons.
However, you do provide a fine example of the differences in thinking and knowledge between scientists and political "thinkers".
PamW
RobertEarl
(13,685 posts)As relates to the evacuations from around Chernobyl and Fukushima, PamW (WRONG) wrote:
As to why people are evacuated; that is just being prudent, at best; and is a result of needless panic at worst.
Tell ya what, you go stand at the gates and tell those people they can all go home. Nothing to worry about.
My God. You have no feeling whatsoever for those people do you? They are just making nukes look bad and are needlessly panicking, according to PamWRONG. I just can't believe anyone would be so callous, but there you have it.
PamW
(1,825 posts)You missed the main point!!
As per Professor Muller; the radiation levels in the "hot spots" are ONE-THIRD the radiation levels in Denver.
So I'm telling people, as per you; to go to where the radiation levels are ONE-THIRD of Denver.
If I told them to go to Denver; that would be THREE TIMES WORSE than going to the "hot spots".
If I told someone to go to Denver; that would be "having no feeling".
I DON'T THINK SO!!
Can't you handle the quantitative aspects of this? Are you that INEPT numbers and values??
Did you understand Professor Muller's article at all?
PamW
RobertEarl
(13,685 posts)Really? That would be total bullshit.
I doubt you know what Muller is saying, because no one could be that stupid.
PamW
(1,825 posts)RobertEarl,
It's ALL there for you to READ!!! ( You do know how to read? )
Now put away your ill-founded, preconceived notions that are based on a lack of knowledge
of the science involved, and read what the good Professor of Physics says.
Can you LEARN? By learning, I mean; can you put aside notions that you accepted
uncritically, without good evidence; and when presented with the TRUTH by good scientists
like Professor Muller; are you going to discard your preconceived notions that have been
shown to be false; and embrace scientific truth?
Are you capable of doing that?
Or are you just so politically motivated in your beliefs that you don't let anything as
mundane as the truth stand in the way of a good political rant?
Are you intellectually honest, or not? In the past, you've demonstrated a real lack of
being intellectually honest; and perhaps you can turn over a new leaf here and become
a seeker of truth.
Are you going to "think" (term used loosely) with your politics; or are you going to think with your brain?
PamW
RobertEarl
(13,685 posts)This convo with you is political.
Call it fighting your bullshit with my bullshit.
You are a single issue poster here and your issue is a losing issue. So I almost feel sorry for you. But since you don't have any feelings for the poor people of nuclear radiated lands, I have zero feelings for you.
Say, by the way, did you know nuke plants could not be built and kept together without welders? Can you weld? According to you, if one can't weld then you shouldn't be talking about nukes.
No, Pam, we win nearly every time with you. Why? Not because we are always right but, because you are always wrong.
PamW
(1,825 posts)RobertEarl,
No - it's your BS against my SCIENCE.
Why do you say I have no feeling for poor people of irradiated lands?
The whole point here is that those irradiated lands are NOT as badly damaged as you "think" ( term used loosely )
they are. You whine and cry that I have no empathy for people who are experiencing environmental radiation that
is less than what one receives in Denver, Colorado.
Since you think that 100 mrem / year is so bad; then if you were really honest and consistent ( which you are not );
then you would be rallying for the evacuation of Denver. Why do you pick and choose which irradiated people you
go to bat for, and why are you so championing the cause of the group that has the LESSER radiation exposure of
the two groups considered here.
Your arrogant presumption without any evidence is showing. I can indeed weld; and solder; and do so for crafts.
I also understand the metallurgical changes that go with welding.
Who is "we" that "thinks" they are winning? And what are you winning?
You haven't won anything; and even if you do prevail, it will be to the DETRIMENT of mankind.
PamW
RobertEarl
(13,685 posts)For someone such as you who is all wise and all knowing and can weld and solder, as you profess to be, to be paying such rapt attention and engaging in such passionate attempts to convince me to accept radiation from nuke plants as part of a regular healthy diet, is flattering.
Why? Because it only goes to show how correct I am to keep fighting for a cleaner, more nuclear radiation free environment.
Thanks, Pam, you are very encouraging.
PamW
(1,825 posts)RobertEarl,
I like a challenge.
I want to see if I can educate those with the least amount of intellect and knowledge on this board.
I believe even rank political propagandists that don't have one microgram of scientific ability can be turned around
and shown that what the public needs is good scientific information and not ignorance-based propaganda.
I see I can always count on your lack of intellectual skills to misinterpret every thing I say.
You shouldn't be encouraged; you should be ashamed. You are the classic "bad example".
PamW
PamW
(1,825 posts)Last edited Fri Nov 9, 2012, 11:16 AM - Edit history (1)
RobertEarl,
I remember another discussion I had with a person on another forum.
The topic was the effects of the use of a nuclear weapon on a city. This particular person stated
that if one were to drop a nuclear weapon on a city; the land that city resided on couldn't be used
for a hundreds of thousands of years.
I disagreed, and asked if his pronouncements applied to the aftermath of dropping a 15-20 kiloton
nuclear weapon on a city. Would his pronouncement apply? His response was in the affirmative.
His claim that a 15-20 kiloton nuclear weapon would render the land on which the city once stood
would remain uninhabitable for hundreds of thousands of years.
I then pointed out that we have done the "experiment", and have a counter example to his contention.
Both Hiroshima and Nagasaki were hit with nuclear weapons in the 15-20 kiloton range. Neither city
was made uninhabitable for hundreds of thousands of years. The Japanese started rebuilding both
of those cities in a matter of months. The 6 decades after World War II have had active, bustling,
metropolises in the locations of both World War II nuclear bombings.
Even with a well known counter-example staring him in the face, he couldn't admit that he was in error.
He was just so steeped in his own propaganda, that he couldn't acknowledge reality.
His ignorance was appalling, and he would never get any better. His prejudices just wouldn't admit
an education into his vacuous skull. Deja vous.
As for your "cleaner, more nuclear radiation free environment mentioned above; you do realize that you
can't have a nuclear radiation free environment. Mother Nature is exposing you to the bulk of the nuclear
radiation that you receive, and you can't free yourself of her radiation.
You get radiation from the cosmos in the form of cosmic rays; and you don't know that there is nothing you
can do about that.
You get radiation from the material this planet is made of because all the matter of this planet is actually
"nuclear waste" from a big nuclear reactor that we call a "star". Evidently you don't know that you can't
do anything about that.
You get radiation from the matter that makes YOU up. YOU are radioactive. Evidently you don't understand
that you can't do anything about that.
As far as making any change at all; let's see how much change you can effect if you are totally successful
in banning all future nuclear activities. Again, I refer to the breakdown of the radiation exposure that you
get that is provided courtesy of the Health Physics Society at the University of Michigan:
http://www.umich.edu/~radinfo/introduction/radrus.htm
In your battle against nuclear power; the best you can do is get rid of the bit that is labelled "nuclear fuel cycle".
I assume you don't want to get rid of the medical benefits of diagnostic X-rays and nuclear medicine.
You can't do anything about the "Fallout" - that's already in the environment. That ship has sailed.
So with a Herculean effort; the best you can do is rid us of that <0.03% that is due to the "nuclear fuel cycle".
With all that effort, the best you can hope for is to go from 100.00% to 99.97% of current exposure levels.
..and you "think" I'm wasting my time...
I'd explain how futile your efforts are; but you wouldn't understand.
PamW
backwoodsbob
(6,001 posts)PROVE me wrong
PamW
(1,825 posts)FBaggins,
Good summary. Unfortunately, idiot Gunderson has the ear of people who think with their politics instead of their brains.
Decay heat is 5-7% of pre-shutdown power for only a short time. The fission products that produce the most heat are those that decay the fastest. That goes together. If the nuclide decays fast; it produces energy fast. However that doesn't last long.
Some of the plants, like Oyster Creek already had the reactor shutdown for refueling. In fact, Oyster Creek has been shutdown over a week. The Salem plant has been offline for refueling since Oct 14.
I agree with you. I don't know where idiot Gunderson gets this idea that there is something that can "unzip" in a spent fuel pool.
Gunderson really should be ashamed. Scientific societies and responsible scientists have called him a crock; but his audience doesn't care whether they are getting the truth or not. They want to be lied to by this idiot; it makes these self-righteous fools feel superior in some manner.
PamW
AtheistCrusader
(33,982 posts)30,000 gallon reserve tank.
570,000 gallon SFP to absorb the heat load of the spent fuel.
TWO full sized diesel backups that are meant to cool the entire fully operational reactor, including driving 40,000 gallons per minute through it's cooling system, while the SFP's only require 250 gallons per minute.
Since the SFP's only need a little water anyway, they have backup diesel fire suppression pumps that can inject 5x the required amount into the SFP's.
And then there are ad-hoc solutions like using fire pumpers to drive water into the SFP's.
In short, Gunderson is a lying, alarmist, irresponsible jackass.
PamW
(1,825 posts)AtheistCrusader states:
In short, Gunderson is a lying, alarmist, irresponsible jackass.
Amen to that! AMEN!
PamW
bananas
(27,509 posts)Glad that he and Amy Goodman are taking the time to explain these issues.
There's so much misinformation from the nuclear industry.
He's "taking time" to spread misinformation. Not educate/explain.
For instance... he just clearly left the listners with the impression that reactors that are currently down in refeuling outages continue to produce 5% of their power and need to cool that amount... and that they could be down to a single diesel while others are being worked on. That simply isn't true. He also throws "Fukushima" in there a few more times for seasoning... claiming "that's exactly what happened at Fukushims" (with a loss of off-site power), when in fact that was NOT "what happened". Add a significant earthquake and massive tsunami knocking out all cooling... THEN you have "what happened".
Once again... you don't need great big pumps to cool a spent fuel pool... and therefore don't need backup diesels to power said pumps.
AtheistCrusader
(33,982 posts)for no good reason.
Yes, reactors can have problems. Yes, things can go wrong. But Gunderson is talking about shit in terms that just don't reflect reality. Not by an order of magnitude.
madokie
(51,076 posts)in a time like this. 26 plants sure makes the odds of something bad happening that much more.
Heres to hoping nothing will happen and they get the power back on so we won't find out how close we were. We have enough on our Plate right now to not need to add more
bananas
(27,509 posts)I thought they were going to.
They haven't learned anything.
AtheistCrusader
(33,982 posts)OR, we're all gonna be fine. One of the two. Probably the latter.
bananas
(27,509 posts)The reality is, there's no good reason to keep them running during a storm like this.
AtheistCrusader
(33,982 posts)It's a luxury.
bananas
(27,509 posts)The blackouts aren't because of a lack of generation,
they're because of downed transmission lines,
flooded transformers,
circuits intentionally shut off to protect equipment,
etc etc etc.
"Con Ed Shuts Off Power to Lower Manhattan"
http://www.democraticunderground.com/1014283865
"Hurricane Sandy: dramatic explosion at Manhattan power plant plunges millions into darkness"
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/northamerica/usa/9642234/Hurricane-Sandy-dramatic-explosion-at-Manhattan-power-plant-plunges-millions-into-darkness.html
FBaggins
(26,743 posts)Reportedly, there are more than 7 million people without power.
But that grid has 60 million people on it.
Don't you think someone should generate power for the rest of them?
AtheistCrusader
(33,982 posts)Are you really suggesting that they should assume providentially that the entire transmission grid WILL go down?
Odin2005
(53,521 posts)
bananas
(27,509 posts)FBaggins
(26,743 posts)He went off the deep end many years ago.
Now he's trying to pull the gullible into the pool with him.
It's not fair to pretend that this is something new.
NickB79
(19,246 posts)He'll just be back in a few months with another proclamation of DOOOOOOMMMMMM!!!!!
FBaggins
(26,743 posts)"I would have been right if it weren't for A,B &C - We almost lost New York City!"
FBaggins
(26,743 posts)That didn't take long
...snip...
Gundersen said that if Oyster Creek was generating power, and the flood waters been just 6 inches deeper, it could have knocked out the pumps and triggered a disaster.
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-10-30/nuclear-power-industry-survives-sandy-s-readiness-test.html
NickB79
(19,246 posts)So the plant workers took the appropriate steps to power down the facility and take it offline.
It's like saying I could have drown the last time I went on vacation, if I hadn't seen that ocean out there and kept driving my car off the pier, and then completely forgot how to swim.
FBaggins
(26,743 posts)It was offline for refueling.
But they certainly could have shut it down once the high-water forecast indicated that it might get too high.
No point it doing so prior to that point.
It's like saying I could have drown the last time I went on vacation, if I hadn't seen that ocean out there and kept driving my car off the pier, and then completely forgot how to swim.
Yep.
Throckmorton
(3,579 posts)We have spent over $20M at my site alone since March 2011 on beyond design basis improvements, under B.5.B. Everything from heavy earth moving equipment, stored above flood level, to numerious small portable pumps and gensets, similarly stored. Plus the procedures to use them and training in their use. We are far from finished with this work, but we have used these lessons and continue to learn from them. In fact, this storm has pointed out that we are on the right track, and the areas that need to be further enhanced.
I'm as big a critic of my industry as anyone, but Arnie's "No backup to cool the spent fuel pool" is a bold face lie.
RobertEarl
(13,685 posts)The nuclear industry has lied and people have died. No one has died because of anything Arnie has said.
The words against him here are fucking atrocious. The falling in behind the deadly life threatening industry, while trying to make a life-saver into the bad guy, fucking makes me sick.
But that is the world the nuclear industry has bought us: A dead end path. Anybody who gets in their way gets slaughtered.
Yall should be ashamed.
Throckmorton
(3,579 posts)Can you prove that no one has died because of what Arnie has said?
What if I commit suicide because of his, and your, dim view of me?
Does my death count?
RobertEarl
(13,685 posts)Why you would even try and defend your slander, especially with such bs, just tells me to not trust anything you have to say. And I used too.
No, Arnie may have made mistakes, but when weighed against the mistakes of the nukers there is no balance to be found. Yet you people just go on like nothing ever happened. Or will.
Fact that yall feel the industry and the lying mother fuckers that built the deadly traps need to be defended with slander, tells a lot about the industry. Then the slander against a good man like Arnie tells us what we need to know about yall
wtmusic
(39,166 posts)to a gullible audience willing to part with some cash to have their beliefs validated.
Yeah, some corporate nuclear executives lie. Just like corporate coal, oil, and wind executives. At least they provide a legit product people can use.
RobertEarl
(13,685 posts)"You bent me over and fucked me up the ass, executives. Please, can I have some more?"
That seems like an accurate depiction, eh?
Mine is: We coulda had a solar V-8.
We are obviously very far apart in actually describing the last 30 year history of power production.
Nihil
(13,508 posts)Not many people have such a consistent miss rate as he does.
NickB79
(19,246 posts)At this point he could probably put a shotgun in his mouth, pull the trigger, and still completely miss his own head.
RobertEarl
(13,685 posts)Embarrassing statements by the nukies again.
Thing is when Arnie misses the mark no one dies. When the nuke plants like Fukushima and Chernobyl miss the mark, death rains down.
But instead of keeping the nukes in line, you people attack a person who works to keep the nukes from missing the mark.
It is precisely the mindset displayed here by some of you that tells me we are doomed.
PamW
(1,825 posts)If idiot Gundersen put a shotgun in his mouth and pulled the trigger, I disagree that he would completely miss his own head.
I think it is far more likely that he would put a bullet right through the middle of his cranium.
However, in doing so; he wouldn't damage any vital functioning organs.
So no big deal.
PamW
GliderGuider
(21,088 posts)Last edited Sun Nov 4, 2012, 12:50 AM - Edit history (1)
As far as I can tell, alarmists and doom-mongers are mostly channeling their own inner fears. And I say that as someone who has monged my fair share of Doom...
PamW
(1,825 posts)Gundersen is WRONG, as always.
He tells us that the only plan the nuclear plants have is to let the fuel pools overheat if there is power loss.
You'd think that in the interest of being accurate; he'd at least explain some of the measures that have been taken to mitigate problems if the electric grid goes down.
For example, in addition to the on-site diesel generators; the Peach Bottom nuclear power plant in Pennsylvania along the Susquehanna River near the Maryland border has a protected underground power line to the Conowingo Hydro-Dam on the Susquehanna in Maryland:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conowingo_Dam
Quoting from the above;
Through subsidiaries and mergers, the dam is now operated by the Susquehanna Electric Company, part of Exelon Power Corporation.
So the Conowingo Dam is owned by Exelon; which also owns and operates ( guess what ) the Peach Bottom Nuclear Power plant.
So if Peach Bottom needs power for shutdown cooling; Exelon owns a hydro dam just down stream which can provide needed shutdown power for Peach Bottom via a protected, hardened underground power line that directly connects the two generation facilities.
Why didn't Arnie Gundersen mention this? Don't you think it would be informative and would give people a better perspective to know what steps are being taken?
Gundersen isn't interested in giving people the whole truth. He's as one-sided in his anti-nuclear arguments as the anti-nukes claim the pro-nuclear are being disingenuous.
I prefer people who are dedicated to the whole truth; and not damn propagandists.
PamW
RobertEarl
(13,685 posts)That's funny. Well, not really. If the dam breaks and drains there will be no power.
An earthquake could do it. Even a drought.
But it is kinda funny that nukes need hydro to protect us from the fuel pools blowing up.
All in all just underlines why nukes are so dangerous. Thanks, PamW.
XemaSab
(60,212 posts)to buffer the power flow.
It's either hydro or natural gas... you take your pick.
PamW
(1,825 posts)Evidently you don't realize that I'm arguing against you.
What my post shows is the degree of multiple backups that make nuclear power safe.
Do you fly in airliners. Airliners have backup systems for backup systems for backup systems....
In your "logic" that make airliners dangerous, because they have so many backup systems.
It's actually what makes them safe.
Are airliners 100% safe? No - there have been crashes that have killed members of the public.
Have any members of the public been killed or injured by commercial nuclear power plants in the USA? NOPE!!!
Nuclear power is actually safer than air travel.
PamW