Sweden: A Town Says ‘Yes, in Our Backyard’ to Nuclear Site

[phantom power]

“I’m a bit scared,” said Ms. Jakobsson, 63, while shopping at a local market. “Everything is so clean there, and yet if you bring anything in, a newspaper — anything — you cannot bring it out again. That says a lot.”

The two women reflect a debate, albeit a one-sided one, in Osthammar, where as many as 80 percent of the 21,000 inhabitants are in favor of the nuclear waste dump. The town is now one of two finalists among the communities in Sweden that vied for the right to host the dump.

Sweden, which swore off nuclear power after less than 20 percent of Swedes approved of it in a referendum in the 1980s, would seem an unlikely place for such a competition. But it has reversed course recently and plans to begin building new nuclear reactors, adding to the 10 it already operates.

But legislation requires that before any new plants can be built, the Swedish Nuclear Fuel and Waste Management Company, better known by the initials SKB, must first create permanent storage space for the radioactive waste the reactors produce.

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/04/06/world/europe/06sweden.html

[madokie]

1. Better there than in mine

On the one hand the nuclear power industry says we need a place to store this waste then on the other they tell me nuclear power is perfectly safe. I don't believe a word they say and if these people know whats good for them they'll give this more thought.

[closeupready]

2. And yet, there are still advisories against consuming reindeer meat due to fallout

from Chernobyl.

[hunter]

3. There are advisories against eating mercury contaminated fish in the U.S. too.

The Chernobyl canard is stupid.

[kristopher]

4. How is Chernobyl a "canard"? Are you asserting that nuclear power plants are perfect?

[FBaggins]

6. Must be convenient living in a binary world.

In the real world we are not limited to two values. If someone claims that 100% is an unrealistic assessment of risk, you can't then conclude that he thinks the risk is zero.

IOW... you make yet another fallacious argument.

[kristopher]

8. In the real world there is a real risk of another Chernobyl scale nuclear event.

Dismissing Chernobyl because the particular technological failure isn't going to be repeated is a ploy to avoid discussion of the consequences of Chernobyl SCALE failures should they occur.

The ONLY legitimate reason to exclude such discussion is if nuclear power is perfect. If you want to make the point that such an event is low probability that is a legitimate argument, however it is equally legitimate to point out 1) the consequences of losing the bet and 2) the fact that risk assessment is largely a product of an industry/regulator relationship that is known to be overly close and prone to skewing analysis in favor of protecting the industry.

For example, go to the NRC website or look at every nuclear industry websites and I guarantee you that you will not fine a word about the actual damage that resulted from Chernobyl. What you will find is whitewash.

For example here is the discussion from the NRC "Fact Sheet" on Chernobyl. Note that their focus is on how the accident resulted in lost jobs and the loss of local power generation.

Discussion

The Chernobyl reactors are of the RBMK type. These are high-power, pressure-tube reactors, moderated with graphite and cooled with water. Fourteen RBMKs are still in operation in the former Soviet Union. There are four reactors at Chernobyl: Unit 4 reactor was destroyed in the 1986 accident; Unit 2 reactor was shut down five years later, after a serious turbine building fire; Unit 1 was closed in November 1996.

The last operating Chernobyl reactor, Unit 3, was closed December 15 as promised by Ukrainian President Leonid Kuchma. To replace electricity lost from the Chernobyl closure, the European Commission has approved a $585 million loan to help the Ukraine complete building two reactors that will meet western safety standards. The European Bank for Reconstruction and Development is to contribute another $215 million. Since the Chernobyl plant is the primary employer and electrical supplier of Slavutych, a town of more than 28,000 people, closure will likely leave the town with virtually no employment alternatives and will be dependent on distant and scarce power sources.

http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/doc-collections/fact-sheets/fschernobyl.html

You can color me cynical if you wish, but the real situation seems to justify a bit more focus on the human health consequences.

Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences
Volume 1181 Issue Chernobyl
Consequences of the Catastrophe for People and the Environment, Pages 31 - 220

Chapter II. Consequences of the Chernobyl Catastrophe for Public Health

Alexey B. Nesterenko a , Vassily B. Nesterenko a ,† and Alexey V. Yablokov b
a
Institute of Radiation Safety (BELRAD), Minsk, Belarus b Russian Academy of Sciences, Moscow, Russia
Address for correspondence: Alexey V. Yablokov, Russian Academy of Sciences, Leninsky Prospect 33, Office 319, 119071 Moscow,
Russia. Voice: [phone]; fax: [phone]. [e-mail]
†Deceased


ABSTRACT

Problems complicating a full assessment of the effects from Chernobyl included official secrecy and falsification of medical records by the USSR for the first 3.5 years after the catastrophe and the lack of reliable medical statistics in Ukraine, Belarus, and Russia. Official data concerning the thousands of cleanup workers (Chernobyl liquidators) who worked to control the emissions are especially difficult to reconstruct. Using criteria demanded by the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), the World Health Organization (WHO), and the United Nations Scientific Committee on the Effects of Atomic Radiation (UNSCEAR) resulted in marked underestimates of the number of fatalities and the extent and degree of sickness among those exposed to radioactive fallout from Chernobyl. Data on exposures were absent or grossly inadequate, while mounting indications of adverse effects became more and more apparent. Using objective information collected by scientists in the affected areas—comparisons of morbidity and mortality in territories characterized by identical physiography, demography, and economy, which differed only in the levels and spectra of radioactive contamination—revealed significant abnormalities associated with irradiation, unrelated to age or sex (e.g., stable chromosomal aberrations), as well as other genetic and nongenetic pathologies.

In all cases when comparing the territories heavily contaminated by Chernobyl's radionuclides with less contaminated areas that are characterized by a similar economy, demography, and environment, there is a marked increase in general morbidity in the former.

Increased numbers of sick and weak newborns were found in the heavily contaminated territories in Belarus, Ukraine, and European Russia.

Accelerated aging is one of the well-known consequences of exposure to ionizing radiation. This phenomenon is apparent to a greater or lesser degree in all of the populations contaminated by the Chernobyl radionuclides.

This section describes the spectrum and the scale of the nonmalignant diseases that have been found among exposed populations.

Adverse effects as a result of Chernobyl irradiation have been found in every group that has been studied. Brain damage has been found in individuals directly exposed—liquidators and those living in the contaminated territories, as well as in their offspring. Premature cataracts; tooth and mouth abnormalities; and blood, lymphatic, heart, lung, gastrointestinal, urologic, bone, and skin diseases afflict and impair people, young and old alike. Endocrine dysfunction, particularly thyroid disease, is far more common than might be expected, with some 1,000 cases of thyroid dysfunction for every case of thyroid cancer, a marked increase after the catastrophe. There are genetic damage and birth defects especially in children of liquidators and in children born in areas with high levels of radioisotope contamination.

Immunological abnormalities and increases in viral, bacterial, and parasitic diseases are rife among individuals in the heavily contaminated areas. For more than 20 years, overall morbidity has remained high in those exposed to the irradiation released by Chernobyl. One cannot give credence to the explanation that these numbers are due solely to socioeconomic factors. The negative health consequences of the catastrophe are amply documented in this chapter and concern millions of people.

The most recent forecast by international agencies predicted there would be between 9,000 and 28,000 fatal cancers between 1986 and 2056, obviously underestimating the risk factors and the collective doses. On the basis of I-131 and Cs-137 radioisotope doses to which populations were exposed and a comparison of cancer mortality in the heavily and the less contaminated territories and pre- and post-Chernobyl cancer levels, a more realistic figure is 212,000 to 245,000 deaths in Europe and 19,000 in the rest of the world. High levels of Te-132, Ru-103, Ru-106, and Cs-134 persisted months after the Chernobyl catastrophe and the continuing radiation from Cs-137, Sr-90, Pu, and Am will generate new neoplasms for hundreds of years.

A detailed study reveals that 3.8–4.0% of all deaths in the contaminated territories of Ukraine and Russia from 1990 to 2004 were caused by the Chernobyl catastrophe. The lack of evidence of increased mortality in other affected countries is not proof of the absence of effects from the radioactive fallout. Since 1990, mortality among liquidators has exceeded the mortality rate in corresponding population groups.

From 112,000 to 125,000 liquidators died before 2005—that is, some 15% of the 830,000 members of the Chernobyl cleanup teams. The calculations suggest that the Chernobyl catastrophe has already killed several hundred thousand human beings in a population of several hundred million that was unfortunate enough to live in territories affected by the fallout. The number of Chernobyl victims will continue to grow over many future generations.

[FBaggins]

15. Also a fallacy.

You don't have to claim zero risk in order to state that someone else's assessment of risk (like your frequent implication that ANY amount of risk means that it WILL eventually happen) is ridiculously high.

And yes, when assessing HOW ridiculously high it is, comparing the technology in use to that which failed is nto irrelevant.

The ONLY legitimate reason to exclude such discussion

There's NO good reason to exclude a discussion of the risks involved... but there is also no legitimate reason to limit the discussion to "there WILL be another Chrnobyl eventually if you support nuclear power"

[kristopher]

19. Do you actually think with with that brain?

I see no evidence in that post; I'd be happy to respond but it is incoherent.

[FBaggins]

Hardly surprising.

You rarely exhibit an understanding of the posts you reply to. Why should I be surprised in this case?

[kristopher]

23. Your post is incoherent - rewrite it.

[FBaggins]

25. No. Better that you learn to read.

Give a man a fish and all that. :)

[kristopher]

32. You can't make a silk purse out of a sow's ear

and all that...

[FBaggins]

36. That's true. Even by spam reposting it scores of times.

n/t

[kristopher]

33. In the real world there is still a real risk of another Chernobyl scale nuclear event.

In the real world there is a real risk of another Chernobyl scale nuclear event. Updated at 12:47 PM

Dismissing Chernobyl because the particular technological failure isn't going to be repeated is a ploy to avoid discussion of the consequences of Chernobyl SCALE failures should they occur.

The ONLY legitimate reason to exclude such discussion is if nuclear power is perfect. If you want to make the point that such an event is low probability that is a legitimate argument, however it is equally legitimate to point out 1) the consequences of losing the bet and 2) the fact that risk assessment is largely a product of an industry/regulator relationship that is known to be overly close and prone to skewing analysis in favor of protecting the industry.

For example, go to the NRC website or look at every nuclear industry websites and I guarantee you that you will not fine a word about the actual damage that resulted from Chernobyl. What you will find is whitewash.

For example here is the discussion from the NRC "Fact Sheet" on Chernobyl. Note that their focus is on how the accident resulted in lost jobs and the loss of local power generation.

Discussion

The Chernobyl reactors are of the RBMK type. These are high-power, pressure-tube reactors, moderated with graphite and cooled with water. Fourteen RBMKs are still in operation in the former Soviet Union. There are four reactors at Chernobyl: Unit 4 reactor was destroyed in the 1986 accident; Unit 2 reactor was shut down five years later, after a serious turbine building fire; Unit 1 was closed in November 1996.

The last operating Chernobyl reactor, Unit 3, was closed December 15 as promised by Ukrainian President Leonid Kuchma. To replace electricity lost from the Chernobyl closure, the European Commission has approved a $585 million loan to help the Ukraine complete building two reactors that will meet western safety standards. The European Bank for Reconstruction and Development is to contribute another $215 million. Since the Chernobyl plant is the primary employer and electrical supplier of Slavutych, a town of more than 28,000 people, closure will likely leave the town with virtually no employment alternatives and will be dependent on distant and scarce power sources.

http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/doc-collections/fact-sheets/fschernobyl.html


You can color me cynical if you wish, but the real situation seems to justify a bit more focus on the human health consequences.

Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences
Volume 1181 Issue Chernobyl
Consequences of the Catastrophe for People and the Environment, Pages 31 - 220

Chapter II. Consequences of the Chernobyl Catastrophe for Public Health

Alexey B. Nesterenko a , Vassily B. Nesterenko a ,† and Alexey V. Yablokov b
a
Institute of Radiation Safety (BELRAD), Minsk, Belarus b Russian Academy of Sciences, Moscow, Russia
Address for correspondence: Alexey V. Yablokov, Russian Academy of Sciences, Leninsky Prospect 33, Office 319, 119071 Moscow,
Russia. Voice: [phone]; fax: [phone]. [e-mail]
†Deceased


ABSTRACT

Problems complicating a full assessment of the effects from Chernobyl included official secrecy and falsification of medical records by the USSR for the first 3.5 years after the catastrophe and the lack of reliable medical statistics in Ukraine, Belarus, and Russia. Official data concerning the thousands of cleanup workers (Chernobyl liquidators) who worked to control the emissions are especially difficult to reconstruct. Using criteria demanded by the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), the World Health Organization (WHO), and the United Nations Scientific Committee on the Effects of Atomic Radiation (UNSCEAR) resulted in marked underestimates of the number of fatalities and the extent and degree of sickness among those exposed to radioactive fallout from Chernobyl. Data on exposures were absent or grossly inadequate, while mounting indications of adverse effects became more and more apparent. Using objective information collected by scientists in the affected areas—comparisons of morbidity and mortality in territories characterized by identical physiography, demography, and economy, which differed only in the levels and spectra of radioactive contamination—revealed significant abnormalities associated with irradiation, unrelated to age or sex (e.g., stable chromosomal aberrations), as well as other genetic and nongenetic pathologies.

In all cases when comparing the territories heavily contaminated by Chernobyl's radionuclides with less contaminated areas that are characterized by a similar economy, demography, and environment, there is a marked increase in general morbidity in the former.

Increased numbers of sick and weak newborns were found in the heavily contaminated territories in Belarus, Ukraine, and European Russia.

Accelerated aging is one of the well-known consequences of exposure to ionizing radiation. This phenomenon is apparent to a greater or lesser degree in all of the populations contaminated by the Chernobyl radionuclides.

This section describes the spectrum and the scale of the nonmalignant diseases that have been found among exposed populations.

Adverse effects as a result of Chernobyl irradiation have been found in every group that has been studied. Brain damage has been found in individuals directly exposed—liquidators and those living in the contaminated territories, as well as in their offspring. Premature cataracts; tooth and mouth abnormalities; and blood, lymphatic, heart, lung, gastrointestinal, urologic, bone, and skin diseases afflict and impair people, young and old alike. Endocrine dysfunction, particularly thyroid disease, is far more common than might be expected, with some 1,000 cases of thyroid dysfunction for every case of thyroid cancer, a marked increase after the catastrophe. There are genetic damage and birth defects especially in children of liquidators and in children born in areas with high levels of radioisotope contamination.

Immunological abnormalities and increases in viral, bacterial, and parasitic diseases are rife among individuals in the heavily contaminated areas. For more than 20 years, overall morbidity has remained high in those exposed to the irradiation released by Chernobyl. One cannot give credence to the explanation that these numbers are due solely to socioeconomic factors. The negative health consequences of the catastrophe are amply documented in this chapter and concern millions of people.

The most recent forecast by international agencies predicted there would be between 9,000 and 28,000 fatal cancers between 1986 and 2056, obviously underestimating the risk factors and the collective doses. On the basis of I-131 and Cs-137 radioisotope doses to which populations were exposed and a comparison of cancer mortality in the heavily and the less contaminated territories and pre- and post-Chernobyl cancer levels, a more realistic figure is 212,000 to 245,000 deaths in Europe and 19,000 in the rest of the world. High levels of Te-132, Ru-103, Ru-106, and Cs-134 persisted months after the Chernobyl catastrophe and the continuing radiation from Cs-137, Sr-90, Pu, and Am will generate new neoplasms for hundreds of years.

A detailed study reveals that 3.8–4.0% of all deaths in the contaminated territories of Ukraine and Russia from 1990 to 2004 were caused by the Chernobyl catastrophe. The lack of evidence of increased mortality in other affected countries is not proof of the absence of effects from the radioactive fallout. Since 1990, mortality among liquidators has exceeded the mortality rate in corresponding population groups.

From 112,000 to 125,000 liquidators died before 2005—that is, some 15% of the 830,000 members of the Chernobyl cleanup teams. The calculations suggest that the Chernobyl catastrophe has already killed several hundred thousand human beings in a population of several hundred million that was unfortunate enough to live in territories affected by the fallout. The number of Chernobyl victims will continue to grow over many future generations.

[FBaggins]

35. Also a fallacy.

You don't have to claim zero risk in order to state that someone else's assessment of risk (like your frequent implication that ANY amount of risk means that it WILL eventually happen) is ridiculously high.

And yes, when assessing HOW ridiculously high it is, comparing the technology in use to that which failed is nto irrelevant.

The ONLY legitimate reason to exclude such discussion

There's NO good reason to exclude a discussion of the risks involved... but there is also no legitimate reason to limit the discussion to "there WILL be another Chrnobyl eventually if you support nuclear power"

[kristopher]

37. The fallacy is your attempt to claim nuclear is perfect

You use a typical form of making the claim - "when assessing HOW ridiculously high it is"...

Ridiculously high? And your basis for that is what, there hasn't been a really fucking close call since the last one?

The reactor core at the Davis-Besse nuclear plant sits within a metal pot designed to withstand pressures up to 2,500 pounds per square inch. The pot -- called the reactor vessel -- has carbon steel walls nearly six inches thick to provide the necessary strength. Because the water cooling the reactor contains boric acid that is highly corrosive to carbon steel, the entire inner surface of the reactor vessel is covered with 3/16-inch thick stainless steel.

But water routinely leaked onto the reactor vessel's outer surface. Because the outer surface lacked a protective stainless steel coating, boric acid ate its way through the carbon steel wall until it reached the backside of the inner liner. High pressure inside the reactor vessel pushed the stainless steel outward into the cavity formed by the boric acid. The stainless steel bent but did not break. Cooling water remained inside the reactor vessel not because of thick carbon steel but due to a thin layer of stainless steel. The plant's owner ignored numerous warning signs spanning many years to create the reactor with a hole in its head.

Workers repairing one of five cracked control rod drive mechanism (CRDM) nozzles at Davis-Besse discovered extensive damage to the reactor vessel head. The reactor vessel head is the dome-shaped upper portion of the carbon steel vessel housing the reactor core. It can be removed when the plant is shut down to allow spent nuclear fuel to be replaced with fresh fuel. The CRDM nozzles connect motors mounted on a platform above the reactor vessel head to control rods within the reactor vessel. Operators withdraw control rods from the reactor core to startup the plant and insert them to shut down the reactor.

The workers found a large hole in the reactor vessel head next to CRDM nozzle #3. The hole was about six inches deep, five inches long, and seven inches wide. The hole extended to within 1-1/2 inches of the adjacent CRDM nozzle #11. The stainless steel liner welded to the inner surface of the reactor vessel head for protection against boric acid was at the bottom of the hole. This liner was approximately 3/16-inch thick and had bulged outward about 1/8-inch due to the high pressure (over one ton per square inch) inside the reactor vessel.

What could have happened?

A loss-of-coolant accident (LOCA) occurs if the stainless steel liner fails or CRDM nozzle #3 is ejected. The water cooling the reactor core quickly empties through the hole into the containment building. The containment building is made of reinforced concrete designed to withstand the pressure surge from the flow through the break.

To compensate for the reactor water exiting through the hole, water inside the pressurizer (PZR) and the cold leg accumulators flows into the reactor vessel. This initial makeup is supplemented by water from the Refueling Water Storage Tank (RWST) delivered to the reactor vessel by the high, intermediate, and low pressure injection pumps. The makeup water re-fills the reactor vessel and overflows out the hole in the reactor vessel head. Approximately 30 to 45 minutes later, the RWST empties. Operators close valves between the pumps and the RWST and open valves between the low pressure injection (RHR) pumps and the containment sump. Water pouring from the broken reactor vessel head drains to the containment sump where the RHR pumps recycle it to the reactor vessel. A cooling water system supplies water to the RHR heat exchanger shown to the left of the RHR pump to remove heat generated by the reactor core.
On paper, that's how the safety systems would have functioned to protect the public. But the following examples suggest that things might not have gone by the book:

-The Three Mile Island nuclear plant experienced a loss of coolant accident in March 1979. Emergency
pumps automatically started to replace the water flowing out the leak. Operators turned off the pumps
because instruments falsely indicated too much water in the reactor vessel. Within two hours, the reactor
core overheated and melted, triggering the evacuation of nearly 150,000 people.

-At the Callaway nuclear plant in 2001, workers encountered problems while testing one of the emergency
pumps. Investigation revealed that a foam-like bladder inside the RWST was flaking apart. Water carried
chunks of debris to the pump where it blocked flow. The debris would have disabled all the emergency
pumps during an accident.

-At the Haddam Neck nuclear plant in 1996, the NRC discovered the piping carrying water from the RWST
to the reactor vessel was too small. It was long enough but it was not wide enough to carry enough water
during an accident to re-fill the reactor vessel in time to prevent meltdown. The plant operated for nearly 30
years with this undetected vulnerability.

-At several US and foreign nuclear power plants, including the Limerick nuclear plant 8 years ago, the force
of water/steam entering the containment building during a loss of coolant accident has blown insulation off
piping and equipment. The water carried that insulation and other debris into the containment sump. The
debris clogged the piping going to the emergency pumps much like hair clogs a bathtub drain. According to
a recent government report, 46 percent of US nuclear plants are very likely to experience blockage in the
containment sumps in event of a hole the size found at Davis-Besse opens up. For slightly larger holes, the
chances of failure increase to 82 percent.<1>

Thus, events at Davis-Besse may have gone by the book had the stainless steel failed it would have become the subject of many books on the worst loss of coolant accident in US history...
UCS -- Aging Nuclear Plants -- Davis-Besse: The Reactor with a Hole in its Head

http://www.ucsusa.org/assets/documents/nuclear_power/acfnx8tzc.pdf







Scapegoating of Davis Besse by NRC
http://www.ucsusa.org/news/press_release/federal-agency-scapegoating-0141.html

Retrospective
http://www.ucsusa.org/nuclear_power/nuclear_power_risk/safety/davis-besse-retrospective.html

[FBaggins]

38. Strawman... and dishonest to boot.

I point out (correctly) that someone doesn't need to believe that nuclear is perfect to disbelieve your wildly off-base claims... and you go and say that means I think that nuclear is perfect?

Yeah... thus proving beyond any shadow of doubt that any confusion in earlier posts was caused by your lack of reading comprehension skills... and not the post itself.

there hasn't been a really fucking close call since the last one:

Thanks for proving my point. Not a one of your examples is anywhere close to being comparable to what happened at chernobyl. Becoming the "worst loss of coolant accident in US history" is like becoming the best performing Single-A team in baseball... you're still not in the same league at the worst team in the majors.

[kristopher]

39. The tactic you use is the same as Bush used with Iraq/911 and chemicalWMD/nuclear weapons

You deny nuclear is perfect - meaning that the risk of an accident is real.
Yet in the same sentence you assert something to the effect that the industry is so safe that an accident will NEVER happen. That is nothing more than a rephrasing of the meaning contained in the sentence "the nuclear industry is perfect".

The risk is real enough that, despite the long odds you claim it is impossible for nuclear power plants to obtain catastrophic insurance on an open market. If the chances were that low, insurance companies would be flocking to rake in money from nuclear power plants because they would KNOW that they will never have to pay out for a major claim.

This is a prime example of the difference between those who embrace environmental values and those who do not. Those who are focused on the energy security that they see nuclear energy providing are more than willing to discount the value of environmental risk as they reach conclusions about risk/reward related to energy. Nuclear power represents the simplistic concept of a direct 1-1 replacement of nuclear for coal, so conceptually it is no leap to see how a person concerned about energy security can conclude that if we HAVE TO CHANGE because of AGW, then nuclear can keep the lights on. For the energy security crowd, the thinking of environmental externalities ends there.

This contrasts sharply with those who look at the entire range of options and place a higher value on the environmental externalities associated with where our energy comes from. It is more complex task to understand the system that will deliver the power, but it is a much, much easier conceptual leap to see the LACK of significant externalities associated with renewables. So the environmental crowd tends to value that aspect higher than the simplistic model of energy production that is the attraction of nuclear power.

Got that?

[FBaggins]

40. I think that we'll call that kristopher's corollary to Godwin's Law.

But since your subject line is disconnected from your message... I suppose we can leave it at that.

You deny nuclear is perfect - meaning that the risk of an accident is real.

Correct. "Real" meaning "not zero"

Yet in the same sentence you assert something to the effect that the industry is so safe that an accident will NEVER happen.

Nope. I've said nothing of the sort (or even close). That's entirely your straw-man.

You know why people invent straw men, don't you? It's because they can't deal with the actual position. Feel free to continue to fool yourself, but please don't think you're fooling anyone else.

If the chances were that low, insurance companies would be flocking to rake in money from nuclear power plants

Wrong again. Should I be surprised that your understanding of the insurance industry is no stronger than your grasp of science? They don't race to insure it, NOT because they know that the risks are too great, but because they can't quantify those risks and thus don't know what to charge.

This is a prime example of the difference between those who embrace environmental values and those who do not.

Another false argument. Going for a record today? There are plenty of environmentalists who lean toward nuclear because they embrace environmental values.

This contrasts sharply with those who look at the entire range of options and place a higher value on the environmental externalities associated with where our energy comes from.

Close. But closer still to say that the contrast is with ignorance that fears whatever it doesn't understand. Which is why the same people often consider depleted uranium to be a WMD.

[kristopher]

41. Risk can't be quantified to the satisfaction of insurance companies, but it is safe?

Dude, that sums up everything you say about nuclear power...


In spite of claims such as just made, the fact is that if the downside risk didn't clearly exceed the upside potential there would be insurance companies willing to write policies for nuclear power. No insurance company is going to accept a risk that has a REAL potential to bankrupt not only the insurance company but the entire nation.

When you wrote "They don't race to insure it, NOT because they know that the risks are too great" you were completely wrong, but you were right when you wrote, "it's because they can't quantify those risks".

The fact is that the potential for liability is SO large that they simply can't come up with an upper limit.

So...

The risk is real enough that, despite the long odds you claim it is impossible for nuclear power plants to obtain catastrophic insurance on an open market. If the chances were as you claim, insurance companies would be flocking to rake in money from nuclear power plants because they would KNOW that they will never have to pay out for a major claim.

This is a prime example of the difference between those who embrace environmental values and those who do not. Those who are focused on the energy security that they see nuclear energy providing are more than willing to discount the value of environmental risk as they reach conclusions about risk/reward related to energy. Nuclear power represents the simplistic concept of a direct 1-1 replacement of nuclear for coal, so conceptually it is no leap to see how a person concerned about energy security can conclude that if we HAVE TO CHANGE because of AGW, then nuclear can keep the lights on. For the energy security crowd, the thinking of environmental externalities ends there.

This contrasts sharply with those who look at the entire range of options and place a higher value on the environmental externalities associated with where our energy comes from. It is more complex task to understand the system that will deliver the power, but it is a much, much easier conceptual leap to see the LACK of significant externalities associated with renewables. So the environmental crowd tends to value that aspect higher than the simplistic model of energy production that is the attraction of nuclear power.

Got that?

[FBaggins]

42. Yep

Dude, that sums up everything you say about nuclear power...

A perfectly rational statement that you don't "get" because it doesn't fit your preconceptions?

Yeah... I'd say that sums it up pretty well.

if the downside risk didn't clearly exceed the upside potential there would be insurance companies willing to write policies for nuclear power.

That's simple not true... and repeating a falsehood (as you've done multiple times here) doesn't make it less false. You can assume that if you repeat it five more times, it will still be false (not that this has ever stopped you before).

[kristopher]

43. ROFLMAO

Insurance companies don't want nuclear industry money not because it is too risky to insure it, but because they can't do the math.

You've earned a spot on the Ed Show - Psycho Talk.

:crazy:

[FBaggins]

44. Boy... you just can't handle reality, can you?

Constantly building straw men.

It isn't that they can't do the math... it's that there isn't any math to do. The regulatory environment (etc) and the changing landscape make it impossible to properly assess the risk.

You ignore (conveniently) the fact that when those risks ARE quantifiable, insurers have no problem issuing policies. ANI insures over 100 plants for over $12 Billion.

[kristopher]

45. ANI is the nuclear industry self insuring for only the first pittance...

Tell you what, let's repeal Price Anderson and watch what happens as the nuclear industry tries to convince insurance companies that their manufacturing process is safe.

That would satisfy me completely.

Now about who can and cannot face reality...

[FBaggins]

46. The "nuclear industry" is your own fictitious construct. (as is your post)

There are dozens of property and casualty insurance companies that are part of ANI... so your statement is false (but par for your little course).

Not that it would matter a whit, since there is no "nuclear industry" entity. You might as well claim that all the customers at my healthcare insurance company are essentially "self insured" except for the profit the company makes. If the "industry" (i.e. power companies in general) WERE to set up their own insurance company, it wouldn't be unlike an insurance co-op. What would it matter than there isn't another firm taking a profit cut off the top? They're still insured.

Tell you what, let's repeal Price Anderson and watch what happens

IF that happens AND nobody can get insurance... THEN you can try to make your point. Trying to use your fantasy assumptions for what would happen in that event as evidence for other arguments continues to demonstrate your weak grasp on reality. It's only when you get to construct your own that your points have merit. The quintessential straw-man debate technique.

[kristopher]

47. If that is my "construct" it has really caught on...

Because there are a lot of people who use the term "nuclear industry". It is sort of like the "petroleum industry" or the "coal industry".

Taxpayer Subsidies for Nuclear Costs
Consider first the way that most nuclear-cost studies ignore taxpayer subsidies that cover many nuclear costs. The largest of the ignored subsidies is for nuclear insurance. The European Commission (consistent with the WNA and Cato-Institute figures) recently showed that, if commercial reactors had to purchase full-insurance-liability coverage on the market, this would triple nuclear-generated-electricity prices (European Commission (EC) 2003; World Nuclear Association (WNA) 2008; Heyes 2002).

Yet a majority of the nuclear-cost studies exclude full-insurance costs, presumably because they are not market costs but mainly government/taxpayer subsidies. Without these subsidies (and liability protection), however, utilities agree they would never use risky atomic energy, e.g. (Scully Capital Services Inc. 2002; Heyes 2002; Spurgeon 2008; Slocum 2008; American Nuclear Society (ANS) 2005; Rothwell 2002; Energy Information Administration (EIA) 1999; Brownstein 1994).

Why not? Insurance rates reflect this high risk, given that the government-calculated, lifetime-core-melt probability for all US-commercial reactors is 1 in 5 (Makhijani 2007; Smith 2006; Shrader-Frechette 2007).

Reflecting various responses to this core-melt risk, commercial reactors fall into three camps regarding liability coverage. The vast majority of reactors are in the first camp (e.g., in China, India, Iran, Pakistan), where operator nuclear liability is 0.

One-third of reactors (many in western Europe and the US) are in the second camp, where operator liability is minimal. US reactors have the highest (minimal) liability, $10.8 billion—roughly 1.5% of government-calculated, worst-case-accident damages of $660 billion (Smith 2006; Shrader-Frechette 2007). The third camp includes 13% of reactors (in Germany, Japan, Switzerland), all having government-guaranteed, unlimited liability (World Nuclear Association (WNA) 2008; Schwartz 2006). All countries thus reduce nuclear-industry risks/costs by transferring them to the people, either directly, to those who live nearby, or indirectly, through taxpayer/government subsidies (Energy Information Administration (EIA) 1999).


Because a majority of the 30 nuclear-cost studies (mentioned above) trim taxpayer-subsidized, nuclear-liability-insurance costs from their energy-cost calculations, they may encourage flawed economic signals, inefficient markets, questionable research ethics, and unequal treatment. It seems inconsistent and unethical for assessors to trim (and not disclose) full-nuclear-liability costs that increase taxpayer risks (Heyes 2002; UK Department of Trade and Industry (UK DTI) 2007), while because of the associated financial risks, the US Securities and Exchange Commission requires disclosing lack of nuclear-liability limits to investors (Brownstein 1994).

K. Shrader-Frechette, "Climate Change, Nuclear Economics, and Conflicts of Interest"

[FBaggins]

48. I didn't mean that the term doesn't exist...

...just that it can't reasonably be used the way you tried to.

Shall we both pretend that you didn't even try to respond to the key points of the post?

[bananas]

50. The Nuclear Energy Institute is the policy organization for the nuclear industry

Maybe the NEI doesn't exist, either?
Or do you think the NEI is running some kind of scam, fronting for something that doesn't exist?
:rofl:

http://sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Nuclear_Energy_Institute

According to its website, the Nuclear Energy Institute (NEI) is "the policy organization of the nuclear energy and technologies industry and participates in both the national and global policy-making process. NEI's objective is to ensure the formation of policies that promote the beneficial uses of nuclear energies and technologies in the United States and around the world."

Kristopher is correct - repeal Price-Anderson, and the nuclear industry dries up and blows away.
Bush's "nukes-for-mangoes" deals are currently stalled over liability issues.

[Statistical]

51. Not even close. Repeal P-A by itself and absolutely nothing changes.

Utilities are currently insured ($10.4 billion in private insurance).
$400 million in private insurance per reactor (costs about $1 mill per year per reactor).
Then they have a combined catastrophic pool of $10 billion.

Repeal P-A and the cost to utilities doesn't change a single penny.

(I assume you mean the govt back stop of claims beyond $10.4 billion because a complete repeal would be stupid it would allow nuclear plants to operate with NO INSURANCE).

The only way costs rise for utilities is if you repeal P-A AND require them to carry more insurance.
If you do that then it will kill nuclear power but it would also kill ANY industry.

However I would expect a legal challenge so it is more like:

If you:
a) Repeal P-A
AND
b) Increase insurance requires by statute to artificially high level ($100 billion, $1000 billion, etc).
AND
c) Govt lose all legal challenges

then yes that would kill nuclear power.

This isn't nuclear specific. 9/11 result in a $2 trillion economic loss. If you required airlines to carry $2 trillion in insurance coverage they would go bankrupt too. Personal drivers can do millions of dollars in damages yet are only required to carry $50K in insurance. If you required drivers to have $10 million in liability insurance (likely $1000 a month) you would bankrupt the car industry too.

No industry (not one on the planet) is required to insure against all eventualities no matter how remote.

[FBaggins]

53. And if you required communities west of the Mississippi to carry enough insurance

to cover a Yellowstone eruption, they too would have to shut down.

The likelyhood of such an eruption is not zero... in fact it WILL happen at some point, killing tens (perhaps hundreds) of millions of people... yet they chose to live there, so we must require them to be insured for any eventuality, no matter how unlikely.

[bananas]

54. Repeal PA, and every reactor shuts down immediately.

[FBaggins]

55. Nope.

There wouldn't be any reason to shut down. They would just know that a loss greater than the insured amount would put them out of business... just like any other company would ("them" in this case being the individual company, not the industry).

What it would take for them to "shut down immediately" would be to repeal PA and pass a new law requiring dramatically excessive insurance coverage. Just like it would put any other company out of business.

But that isn't going to happen... so one wonders why you're stuck on it?

[bananas]

57. Wrong

US firms aren't willing to trade with India until they get liability caps.
This isn't hypothetical - it's reality.
And for the exact same reasons, if US liability caps were turned off, the reactors would be turned off.

http://articles.latimes.com/2010/mar/16/world/la-fg-india-nukes16-2010mar16

India's government withdraws nuclear power legislation

With opposition mounting, the ruling coalition pulls back a bill that would have capped liability payouts by the government and foreign plant operators in the event of a nuclear accident.

March 16, 2010|By Anshul Rana

Reporting from New Delhi — The Indian government's bid to cap liability for nuclear plants, seen by U.S. reactor-builders and operators as a prerequisite for entering the Indian market, was dealt a blow Monday when the ruling coalition withdrew legislation in the face of mounting opposition.

The measure would limit to about $65 million the compensation that foreign nuclear operators would be liable for in the event of a nuclear accident. It would also cap the government's liability at about $385 million and mandate that all claims be presented within 10 years.

The government has argued that the protection is necessary to implement a landmark 2008 Indo-U.S. deal that opened the way for cooperation on India's civilian nuclear power program.

But the opposition has charged that the bill was being pushed through under U.S. pressure, that it failed to protect Indian citizens in the event of a disaster and that it placed most of the burden of any cleanup on taxpayers.

The sudden withdrawal in the Lok Sabha, or lower house of parliament, sparked howls from the opposition, which had sought a showdown. Science and Technology Minister Prithviraj Chavan told reporters that he needed to reevaluate support for the measure. "There is no urgency to introduce the bill," he added.

Without the liability law, U.S. firms will not get insurance coverage for their projects in India. Local media reported in November that several global players eager to grab a share of India's nuclear energy market, which could exceed $150 billion in coming years, were unable to do so without the legislation.

<snip>

[FBaggins]

58. Not at all the same thing

That's insurance for construction on the other side of the world (with an independent legal system)... not operation of an existing plant here in the US.

You continue to ignore the substance of these posts... is it intentional? Almost all companies lack insurance for the absolute worst case scenario... it doesn't keep them from operating.

[Statistical]

56. Repeal P-A (and do nothing else) and every reactor operates without insurance.

:)

Guess you didn't realize that it is P-A that mandates utilities carry the high level of insurance they current do ($10.4 billion).
Without P-A there would be no mandate and I doubt utilities would keep that much insurance. They likely would keep a small amount to avoid cost of a "small" claim but nothing like $10.4 billion they are required to carry now.

Reactors would operate with minimal insurance and if a major accident occurs they would file Bankruptcy.

I don't think you have thought this through.

[bananas]

59. "the private sector informed Congress that they would be forced to withdraw from the field..."

"spokesmen for the private sector informed Congress that they would be forced to withdraw from the field if their liability were not limited by appropriate legislation"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duke_Power_Co._v._Carolina_Environmental_Study_Group

[FBaggins]

52. And the NEA is a policy advocacy organization

But that doesn't mean there's a "teaching industry" that is a defined entity.

And if the NEA started a co-op health insurance plan, it still wouldn't be correct to imply that they were essentially self insured because they couldn't get insurance elsewhere.

Get it yet?

[madokie]

49. All I see is ignored

LOL :hi:

[closeupready]

5. Yes, if you are a pregnant woman, there are absolutely advisories against more than once-weekly tuna

due to concern about birth defects caused by mercury contained therein.

Further, I actually know Swedish citizens whose immune systems have been compromised not by AIDS but fallout from Chernobyl. I'll let them know they are being victimized by a canard. :eyes:

[FBaggins]

7. You can't possibly "know" that an immune system was "compromised" by chernobyl.

Such a claim is beyond any reasonable level of credibility.

The closest anyone could possibly come would be to compare rates of such events and analyze what proportion of them might be tied to chernobyl. You can't point to one person and say "x did this" when "x" is hundreds of miles away.

For example, one of the most pessimistic assessments of cancers in Sweden said that of 22,400 cancer cases, they felt that 849 could be attributed to Chernobyl (most assessments are far lower). But if your friend had cancer you couldn't point to her and say "I know someone who got cancer from Chernobyl"

[closeupready]

9. I don't need quotation marks, because her doctor told her that.

(That was easy.)

Oh, wait - now you're going to question her doctor's credentials, or else claim that you are a doctor yourself, right? :rofl: (After you mention that 3 Mile Island was a 'success story, hurray!' :D )

[FBaggins]

10. It may have been "easy"... but it's just as wrong.

It isn't a medical determination to say "this was caused by Chernobyl" - so the doctor's credentials aren't relevant to the conversation. He has no more ability to "know" than you do.

[closeupready]

13. Keep carrying that water. LOL

:rofl:

[FBaggins]

17. Keep pretending to have a clue.

Someone is bound to buy it.

Once again... there is no doctor in the world who could make such a diagnosis (and I don't believe you if you claim that one did).

The closest they could come would be to say "we used to have 2,000 immune disorders a year in Sweden and we now have 4,000. About 1700 of them appear to be from AIDS, so we think there is a 15% increase in cases caused by other factors. Chernobyl is the most obvious of those. So there's about a 13% chance that your disorder was casued by that event."

[Dogmudgeon]

16. My nephew was made autistic by thimerosal in his vaccines

His doctor told his parents (my brother and his wife) that.

Of course, the idea is complete crap, but this doctor has a lot of "interesting" beliefs, and prescribed special adhesive pads to draw out the toxins through the boy's feet.

And, yes, my brother and his family found a new doctor.

I question ALL physicians. So should you.

--d!

[FBaggins]

21. And no doubt the thimerosal version of kristopher would come along...

...and claim that pointing that out is a standard vaccine industry dodge to avoid responsibility for their crimes.

The difference in this case, however, is that we know that certain forms of radiation do cause immune disorders AND we know that levels of such radiation were elevated in the area due to Chernobyl. There will therefore be more cancers and more immune disorders in the area 20/30/50 years after the event than there would otherwise be.

Scientists will dispute how many cases would result (and have), but the dose was far smaller than a normal lifetime dose, so there can be no way to lay any particular case at the feet of this event. It's like trying to tell a smoker which cigarette pushed her over the edge in to getting lung cancer.

[kristopher]

22. What part of "clear statistical evidence" did you not understand?

[FBaggins]

24. Lol... the part where it applies to the conversation.

You might try reading before replying.

There is no "clear statistical evidence" for a particular person hundreds of miles away.

If the person lived twenty miles away and developed thyroid cancer you would have pretty "clear statistical evidence" that Chernobyl was the cause (though you could still be wrong, it would at least be reasonable). But immune disorders in Sweden? Did they even increase by 5% (after factoring out AIDS)? There is no "clear statistical evidence" that could possibly point any one case toward that cause. There are quite a few environmental sources of radiation in Sweden.

[closeupready]

27. You like maps?

Here's one:

[FBaggins]

30. Love 'em

Now all you need to do is compare that dosage to the lifetime equivelencies for each form of radiation.

When you do so... you will likely learn something. Let us all know when the lightbulb turns on. Wouldn't want to miss that day.

[Statistical]

31. The lightbulb will never turn on.

Faith based convictions can't be overcome with facts.

[FBaggins]

34. Well then... that may go down in history...

...as his MOST "green" contribution. :)

[closeupready]

29. Oh, yeah? Well, I have a friend who believes he was a Nazi in a past life.

And he suffers today, he believes, because of the sins he committed in that life.

I question all my friends. So should you.

:crazy:

[kristopher]

18. Baggy is using the polluters oldest dodge- "You can't prove it so don't blame us!"

The link between cause and effect for health issues is often very difficult to establish with any degree of certainty. So, in spite of clear statistical evidence that there is a very significant loss of life associated with their product, polluters such as the nuclear industry avoid responsibility for the external costs of their products by hiding behind the epidemiological obstacle of individual causation.

If her doctor has evaluated her history and made the informed judgment that exposure to fallout is the likely culprit, that is more than ample for a normal person who isn't engaged in defending the indefensible.

[closeupready]

28. Completely agree.

n/t

[Statistical]

11. Sweden model is far superior to US when it comes to a plan for nuclear waste.

Legislation in Sweden gave every town with x number of miles of a potential site (can't remember exact limit) complete veto power over a storage site. Thus it is impossible to build a repository without approval of citizens closest to it.

So unlike US model where the "top" decided Yucca Mt is the site and then attempted (with no success) to push it forward for 25 years Sweden started evaluating potential sites and then left final decision up the citizens.

We could learn a lot from Sweden. The bottom up approach has been far more successful than the cram down from top aproach tried in the United States. Then again scientific literacy is higher so they are working with an informed population and a population who genuinely cares about the environment.

[phantom power]

12. I was mostly fascinated that they had 80% of a population agree on *anything*

much less a topic having to do with nuclear energy. I can no longer picture 80% of any population in America agreeing on something.

[Statistical]

14. Scandianvian countries tend to be more homogeneous.

There is less importance place on "being an individual" in the culture. The people are mostly from same religion, ethnic, and racial backgrounds so that also helps.

Also while there are rich people even millionaires and billionaires there is less cultural focus/fascination on accumulation of wealth. It certainly helps to see long term goals and planning for future when you aren't focused on "bling bling", "how many mililons a celebrity/CEO/athlete/etc made" and "lower my taxes I need more $$$$$$$$".

My mother was born in Finland. I have been there a couple times. The culture is very different from American culture.

[joshcryer]

20. Sounds like something to aspire to.

[FBaggins]

26. As long as we only get rid of people...

...who don't look like you, right?

[amborin]

62. article says it was mainly concern for jobs that made people accept; mayor said the

survey was too abstract and not well designed

[joshcryer]

64. Sounds like the acceptance of the Steen Mountain windfarm (on federally protected land).

Energy companies, exploiting one small poor community at a time.

[amborin]

61. mayor said survey poorly done; article said people agreed mostly due to jobs, not concern for envir

[amborin]

63. article said it was concern for jobs, moreso than environment; & the mayor derided the decision proc

[amborin]

60. the town's mayor derides the survey:

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/04/06/world/europe/06sweden.html?pagewanted=2&sq=sweden nuclear&st=cse&scp=1

.... Jacob Spangenberg, 56, a trained agronomist who has been mayor for four years. Some say, too, that the national government could overrule the town’s veto right if they declared the matter to be of importance to national security.

In television and newspaper interviews, Mr. Spangenberg has welcomed the storage site.


Receiving a visitor in his farmhouse five miles from the town center, he seems somewhat less sure.

He questioned the value of opinion surveys that recorded a high level of acceptance among the town’s residents. “The question was extremely abstract; it was a simplistic question,” he said, adding that many people gave a positive response because they were unaware what the decision implied.
“If you have an agenda, it’s easy to get the response that you want,” he said. “At the same time, the respondents had no clue about the consequences, what the system looks like.”

snip

The dump’s opponents, Osthammar residents like Mats Tornqvist, a retired chemist who returned to his native Osthammar from Stockholm, have conceded the fight, if not the argument.
“I’m a chemical engineer, I’ve worked with waste problems since 1985, I’ve read all the papers” on the long-term storage of nuclear waste, he said. “They can say all they want, they have no solution.”
He agreed with Mr. Jansson that the prospect of jobs brought people around. “We have a community here that is very dependent on this industry,” he said. “For every person working at the power plant, possibly five more have jobs that depend on it.”