Any Current Defenders of Nuclear Energy?
 
Page: <  1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 >

04/10/11 9:22 PM

Old Moparz posted:
... since I'd hate to see this topic locked for simple mindedness.

If they were gonna do that, they'd have started with the OP. Most things in these boards are posts made by people who pose as if they want to engage in discussion, when in reality they just want to engage in pedagogy of their own immutable (and often poorly supported) opinion. Since they do not lock very many threads of this nature, my guess is that simple-mindedness is not a criterion for being locked.

 

04/11/11 4:24 AM

No it isnt. If your argument doesnt stand up and others find holes in it then it isnt their fault, its yours. Believe it or not, forums can teach you a lot about really thinking about your opinions, why you hold them, and if they actually have any basis in fact (or reality) for that matter.

There is nothing quite like that feeling of finding that your own opinions dont stand up....quite scary in fact.

Anyway, back on topic.......

 

04/11/11 5:51 AM

^^thumbs up

 

04/11/11 7:02 AM

Bravo, YKWKA!


This just in--yet another aftershock over in Japan, this morning: [news.yahoo.com]


Edit: also another good link here with a short video update that's pretty good:

[www.msnbc.msn.com]



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 04/11/2011 10:14AM by LisaM..

 

04/11/11 10:30 PM

[www.bbc.co.uk]

BBC NEWS posted:
"Japanese authorities have raised the measure of severity of their nuclear crisis to the highest level, officials say."

 

04/11/11 9:47 PM

Chalkmaze posted:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-pacific-13045341

BBC NEWS posted:
"Japanese authorities have raised the measure of severity of their nuclear crisis to the highest level, officials say."

Here's another link on Yahoo: [news.yahoo.com]

They're saying it's now as bad as Chernobyl. . .

 

04/11/11 10:12 PM

They also warned the locals that things may get considerably worse.

 

04/12/11 6:38 AM

PeedroPaula posted:
They also warned the locals that things may get considerably worse.


TOKYO – Japan raised the crisis level at its crippled nuclear plant Tuesday to a severity on par with the 1986 Chernobyl disaster, citing high overall radiation leaks that have contaminated the air, tap water, vegetables and seawater.
Japanese nuclear regulators said they raised the rating from 5 to 7 — the highest level on an international scale of nuclear accidents overseen by the International Atomic Energy Agency — after new assessments of radiation leaks from the Fukushima Dai-ichi plant since it was disabled by the March 11 tsunami.

The new ranking signifies a "major accident" that includes widespread effects on the environment and health, according to the Vienna-based IAEA. But Japanese officials played down any health effects and stressed that the harm caused by Chernobyl still far outweighs that caused by the Fukushima plant.



Yeah, I like how the two highlighted sections of the text above, seem to contradict each other; yup, it's the worst possible rating and is right on par with Chernobyl, but don't worry--the health effects are nothing to worry about. Seems to me that if it's on par with Chernobyl, then, um, aren't the health effects kinda on par, too?? I didn't realize that the crisis rating wasn't all-encompassing, but rather selectively encompassing. Let's pick and choose what we'll call a "bad-ass situation", folks, by only singling out portions of the entire event instead of viewing it as a whole . eye rolling smiley



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 04/12/2011 06:39AM by LisaM..

 

04/12/11 1:16 PM

Japan nuclear crisis on same level as Chernobyl
A complete article on the subject [www.msnbc.msn.com]...


TOKYO — Japan raised the severity level of the crisis at its crippled nuclear plant Tuesday to rank it on par with the 1986 Chernobyl disaster, citing cumulative radiation leaks that have contaminated the air, tap water, vegetables and seawater.


Japanese nuclear regulators said the rating was being raised from 5 to 7 — the highest level on an international scale overseen by the International Atomic Energy Agency — after new assessments of radiation leaks from the Fukushima Dai-ichi plant since it was disabled by the March 11 tsunami.

The new ranking signifies a "major accident" that includes widespread effects on the environment and health, according to the Vienna-based IAEA.

"Our preparations for how to measure (the radiation leakage) when such a tsunami and earthquake occurred were insufficient and, as a result, we were late in disseminating information internationally," said a senior official in Prime Minister Naoto Kan's office.

Hidehiko Nishiyama, a deputy director-general of the Nuclear and Industrial Safety Agency (NISA), said the decision to raise the severity of the incident from level 5 to 7 — the same as the Chernobyl disaster in Ukraine in 1986 — was based on cumulative quantities of radiation released.

"Even before this, we had considered this a very serious incident so, in that sense, there will be no big change in the way we deal with it just because it has been designated level 7," an agency official said.

Continued aftershocks following the 9.0-magnitude megaquake on March 11 have impeded work in stabilizing the Fukushima plant — the latest a 6.3-magnitude one Tuesday that prompted plant operator Tokyo Electric Power Co., or TEPCO, to temporarily pull back workers.


However, the operator of the stricken facility appears to be no closer to restoring cooling systems at the reactors, critical to lowering the temperature of overheated nuclear fuel rods.

The official in Kan's office said that the prime minister would instruct plant operator Tokyo Electric Power (TEPCO) to set target dates for when it would halt the radiation leakage as well as restore the cooling systems.

No radiation-linked deaths have been reported since the earthquake struck, and only 21 plant workers have been affected by minor radiation sickness, according to Chief Cabinet Secretary Yukio Edano.

'Nowhere near' Chernobyl

A level 7 incident means a major release of radiation with a widespread health and environmental impact, while a 5 level is a limited release of radioactive material, with several deaths, according to the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA).

Several experts said the new rating exaggerated the severity of the crisis, and that the Chernobyl disaster was far worse.

"It's nowhere near that level. Chernobyl was terrible — it blew and they had no containment, and they were stuck," said nuclear industry specialist Murray Jennex, an associate professor at San Diego State University in California.


"Their (Japan's) containment has been holding, the only thing that hasn't is the fuel pool that caught fire."


The blast at Chernobyl blew the roof off a reactor and sent large amounts of radiation wafting across Europe. The accident contaminated vast areas, particularly in Ukraine and neighboring Belarus, led to the evacuation of well over 100,000 and affected livestock as far away as Scandinavia and Britain.

Nevertheless, the increase in the severity level heightens the risk of diplomatic tension with Japan's neighbors over radioactive fallout. China and South Korea have already been critical of the operator's decision to pump radioactive water into the sea, a process it has now stopped.

"Raising the level to a 7 has serious diplomatic implications. It is telling people that the accident has the potential to cause trouble to our neighbors," said Kenji Sumita, a nuclear expert at Osaka University.

NISA and the NSC have been measuring emissions of radioactive iodine-131 and cesium-137, a heavier element with a much longer half-life. Based on an average of their estimates and a formula that converts elements into a common radioactive measure, the equivalent of about 500,000 terabecquerels of radiation from iodine-131 has been released into the atmosphere since the crisis began.

That well exceeds the Level 7 threshold of the International Nuclear and Radiological Event Scale of "several tens of thousands of terabecquerels" of iodine-131. A terabecquerel equals a trillion becquerels, a measure for radiation emissions.

The government says the Chernobyl incident released 5.2 million terabecquerels into the air — about 10 times that of the Fukushima plant.

 

04/12/11 2:41 PM

Because it's good to have multiple sources:

Fukushima Vs. Chernobyl: What Does Level 7 Mean?

April 12, 2011

The Japanese government on Tuesday raised the rating of the crisis at the Fukushima Dai-ichi power plant to a level 7. That's the highest possible level on the international scale used to evaluate the seriousness of nuclear incidents. The only other nuclear incident to earn that rating: the 1986 accident at the Chernobyl nuclear plant in Ukraine.

The decision to bump up the rating from five to seven was prompted by new data on the amount of radiation released at the plant in the early days of the crisis — not by any recent change in the plant's status.

Some 370,000 terabecquerels of radioactive iodine and cesium have been released at Fukushima — more than officials originally thought. (A terabecquerel equals 1 trillion becquerels, a measure for radiation emissions.) Most of it spewed into the atmosphere in the early days of the crisis, and radiation levels have generally been declining.

Though Fukushima and Chernobyl are both level 7 nuclear accidents, the health consequences in Japan to date are much less severe. In part, that's because far more radiation was released at Chernobyl. So far, Fukushima Dai-ichi has released about one-tenth of the amount of radioactive material that escaped Chernobyl, according to an official from the International Atomic Energy Agency.

At Chernobyl, an entire reactor exploded, sending up a massive fire and radioactive plume that dispersed radiation over a wide area. The reactor at the Soviet plant was not surrounded by any containment structure, so radiation escaped freely.

People near Chernobyl were not warned against drinking contaminated milk, and many residents later developed thyroid cancer. Two Chernobyl plant workers died on the night of the accident, and 28 more people died within a few weeks from radiation poisoning. Over the long term, several thousand more people were put at risk for cancer.

Fukushima has also experienced explosions and fires, and some of the reactors' containment vessels may be damaged, but the highly radioactive cores remain largely protected. Much of the radioactive material already released in Japan has been carried out to sea away from populated areas, thanks to prevailing winds. And the government moved quickly to evacuate people from risky areas and to keep contaminated food out of the stores.

Some workers at Fukushima have been exposed to high levels of radiation since the crisis began. The long-term health effects of that exposure remain unknown, but there have been no known deaths associated with the crisis to date.

The World Health Organization confirmed Tuesday there was "very little" public health risk outside the 18-mile evacuation zone around the plant.

 

04/12/11 3:23 PM

Keep in mind that those articles state that Fukushima has released much less radiation than Chernobyl "to date" and "so far"... There's still plenty of time for things to get much worse.

 

04/12/11 4:25 PM

Yes, I read the articles. Things could always get worse...but there's no reason to anticipate it will happen, to make a point. Some people actually want to be hopeful with the current status...some people don't and just point out the doom that has yet to happen (if it ever does).



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 04/12/2011 04:26PM by OMS.

 

04/12/11 4:35 PM

I'm hopeful that the worst has already happened, but I'm also a pragmatist and history has shown - especially in regard to this particular event - that Murphy's Law is pretty damned sound!

 

04/12/11 4:42 PM

I'm a firm believer that history is not always destined to repeat its self. I'm also a firm believer that always expecting the worst is the very definition of a Debbie Downer.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 04/12/2011 04:43PM by OMS.

 

04/12/11 4:46 PM

Debbie Downer? Me? Not at all. I'm Paula Pessimist.

 

04/12/11 4:54 PM

I'm Lisa 4oz in an 8oz cup.

 

04/12/11 10:58 PM

deleted



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 04/12/2011 10:59PM by Riktor.

 

04/13/11 7:12 AM

Going in a different direction, I want to point out what my university is doing in a effort to use sustainable energy. These are not the only examples but two that happened to get some attention lately.

Wind turbines to generate power for new UNT football stadium

DENTON (UNT), Texas -- The University of North Texas has received a $2 million grant from the State Energy Conservation Office to install three wind turbines that will feed the electrical grid that provides power to UNT's new football stadium and other buildings on the west side of Interstate 35E.

The stadium, which will open in September, is the first collegiate stadium designed to incorporate onsite renewable energy. The turbines are expected to be installed by the end of the year.

"The effort by the staff of the UNT System and the university to meet the requirements of the Department of Energy and the State Energy Conservation Office to win the grant for these new turbines underscores our commitment to creating a carbon-neutral campus," said V. Lane Rawlins, president of UNT. "Our university has a 50-year legacy of environmental research and sustainability and we're proud to be the first university in Texas to install wind turbines on campus. "

It is estimated that the three wind turbines will offset the energy consumption of Mean Green Village, the area of campus surrounding the new stadium, by about 6 percent and eliminate 323 metric tons of carbon dioxide being emitted annually. The turbines will be visible from I-35E and I-35W providing visual evidence of UNT's commitment to sustainability.

A web-based monitoring system will provide details on energy production, carbon reduction statistics and empirical data that can be used for both educational and research purposes at UNT. Designed for low wind conditions, the community-scale 100kW wind turbines are well suited for the North Texas region, which has a wind speed average of approximately 12 mph.

Unlike the very large turbines generally found at wind farms, community-scale turbines are considerably smaller and ideal for municipalities, schools, neighborhoods, and universities. The approximate noise level of the turbines is 55 decibels at 40 meters (131 feet), which is equivalent to that of a normal conversation between two people.

"The construction of wind turbines at UNT will be an invaluable asset to the university and surrounding communities," said Richard Escalante, vice chancellor for administrative services. "The reduction in carbon emissions from the use of fossil fuels will be a collective benefit for the entire North Texas region. Sustainable initiatives, such as the use of renewable energy technologies, ensure that future generations of the UNT and Denton communities are equipped with the necessary tools to continue economic expansion while simultaneously protecting the environment and human health."

The wind turbines will be located southwest of the new stadium, and aligned approximately parallel to Bonnie Brae Street. The turbines will be on the east side of Bonnie Brae.

Design and construction of the turbines is expected to begin immediately. At its November meeting, the UNT System Board of Regents selected HKS DesignGreen for the design of the turbines and supporting structure. The construction manager will be selected shortly, according to Raynard Kearbey, UNT System associate vice chancellor for system facilities, whose team is overseeing design and construction of the stadium and wind turbines.

"These wind turbines will give UNT a trifecta of benefits," noted Chris Mundell, sustainable design manager with HKS DesignGreen. "They will be an innovative educational tool for UNT students and faculty. The turbines also will be a symbol of sustainability for all the stadium's spectators. Lastly, they help offset energy consumption of the new stadium, making it one of the most energy efficient in the country."

Scheduled to open in September 2011, the new 28,000 seat stadium will feature luxury suites, an amenity-filled club level, and a Spirit Store.

The new stadium will be the centerpiece in UNT's Mean Green Village. In addition to hosting UNT events, it will serve the entire North Texas region as a venue for outdoor concerts, community events, high school games and band competitions.

The new stadium, which will replace 57-year-old Fouts Field, is designed by award-winning architects HKS Sports & Entertainment Group, the firm that designed the new Dallas Cowboys stadium. The UNT System will be seeking LEED Gold or Platinum certification. If the project is awarded LEED Platinum, it will be the first of its type to achieve this rating in the country.


UNT's Human Power Plant

The University of North Texas is turning a workout facility into what it says is the largest human power plant in the nation.

Thirty-six elliptical machines at UNT's recreation center have been fitted with a device that captures the kinetic energy they produce and coverts it into electricity.

"The energy that they produce is usually heat that escapes into the building. It's then turned into electricity that is used right here in the rec center to power the lights, power everything," UNT spokesman Stuart Birdseye said.

As students rev up the machines, a monitor shows how much clean, carbon- free electricity is being produced. Birdseye said more resistance means more energy.

"When you talk about energy, you think about windmills and water -- other things producing energy, not yourself, working out," student Denise Romo said.

Developers say a typical, 30-minute workout creates enough energy to power a laptop for an hour or charge a cellphone six times.

"I wonder how much money we are saving the school," student Daniel Hold said. "It's kind of neat to think of it that way."

Birdseye said the university hasn't had the system long enough to see an impact on cost.

UNT spent nearly $20,000 to outfit the machines.

 

04/13/11 10:39 AM

Here another article on the diff/sim between Cherynobl and Fukushima:Nuclear comparisons
And if you're interested, an article on how the rubber stamps approvals for Hydrofracking for natural gas in the Marcellus Shale. Sad. yahooNews rubberfracking

Here's the cherynobl/fukushima article in full:
Japan raised the assessment of its nuclear crisis to the most severe rating Tuesday, on the same level as the Chernobyl disaster, the world's worst to date. Some answers to questions about the assessment and health and safety concerns:

Q. Has the situation at the Japanese nuclear power plant worsened?

A. No. The heaviest radiation leaks at the Fukushima Dai-ichi nuclear complex occurred in the first days after the March 11 earthquake-triggered tsunami crippled the plant's cooling systems. Workers are trying to lower temperatures in the overheated nuclear reactors, but still don't have full control. Problems persist, like the leak into the ocean plugged last week, but authorities say the radiation leaks are declining.

Q. If the situation's not getting worse, why did Japan raise its assessment of the crisis?

A. The decision was based on new assessments of radiation leaks since the crisis began, rather than on deteriorating conditions. The new data showed emissions exceeding the threshold for a "major accident," level 7 on a 1-to-7 scale set by the International Atomic Energy Agency. Only one accident has previously rated 7, the 1986 meltdown at the Chernobyl nuclear power plant.

Q. So is Japan's crisis as bad as Chernobyl's?

A. Not yet. Chernobyl was a fast-moving crisis. A routine shutdown went awry, causing a reactor to overheat, explode and burn. For 10 days, the reactor spewed high levels of radiation into the air and only cooled after helicopters dropped sand, clay, lead and other materials on it. By contrast, Fukushima crisis has been a slow cascade of problems over a month. Explosions occurred at three of Fukushima's reactors and one may be leaking. But the two plants' reactor designs are different. Unlike Chernobyl's reactors, Fukushima's have pressure vessels of steel six inches (15 centimeters) thick that may have helped contain the damage.

Q. Then why the same severity level rating?

A. The IAEA defines a level-7 accident as one in which a large amount of radiation is released into the atmosphere, likely harming human health and damaging the environment over the long-term. That threshold is set at several tens of thousands of terabecquerels — a unit of radiation — of iodine-131, a radioactive element commonly released in nuclear accidents. Leaks at both plants have exceeded that limit, but the Japanese government says Fukushima's are still one-tenth of those released by Chernobyl. The possibility Fukushima's emissions could surpass Chernobyl's is considered small, but still a risk until Fukushima's cooling systems are restored.

Q. What are the health risks?

A. Radiation normally occurs in the environment, and at low levels cause no health problems for people. In higher doses, radiation may cause types of cancer. Limiting exposure is key. Because radioactive elements are heavy, they tend to concentrate closest to the source, in this case the nuclear plant. The Japanese government has evacuated people living near the plant and advised people a bit farther out to stay indoors.

Q. Are only people close to the plant at risk?

A. Winds have been blowing to the northwest of the plant, rather than out to sea, carrying radioactive elements farther inland. The government has banned the sale of vegetables and milk from certain areas after they showed contamination. The government on Monday also ordered people in five communities outside the evacuation zone to leave to avoid long-term radiation exposure.

Q. What about people outside Japan?

A. Weather patterns are already carrying traces of radiation from Fukushima to South Korea and China. Airborne radioactive particles have also reached the United States. In all cases, the governments say the amounts detected aren't dangerous.

Q. Didn't people die at Chernobyl?

A. Thirty-one men died mostly from being exposed to very high levels of radiation trying to contain the accident. About 5 million people were exposed to radiation. Higher rates of thyroid cancer have been found among people 18 or younger at the time of the accident. An IAEA study said about 4,000 people would ultimately die from cancer, though a U.N. study estimated cancer deaths at more than twice that number and other groups put the fatalities many times higher.

Q. Is the same thing happening at Fukushima?

A. At Fukushima, 21 workers have been exposed to radiation doses the equivalent of 100 millisieverts. Two were treated for burns after walking in heavily contaminated water in a plant building. But no deaths from radiation exposure have occurred so far. Cancers often take years or decades to develop.

Q. What radioactive elements have been found so far?

A. Most measurements have focused on two, iodine and cesium. Radiation from iodine-131 dissipates quickly, falling by half every eight days and nearly disappearing after 80 days. If inhaled or swallowed, it can concentrate in the thyroid and cause cancer. Cesium-137 lingers far longer, 30 years to decay by half and 300 to disappear. Cesium too can build up in the body and is linked to cancers, though studies after Chernobyl did not find an increase in cancers linked to cesium.

 

04/14/11 7:47 AM

We know the opinions of those who have contributed to this thread, now here is an article that expresses the opinions of the rest of the country.

Nuclear neighbors: Population soars near US reactors
Map of census data shows a 17 percent increase in residents within 10 miles in a decade


WATERFORD, Conn. — Who's afraid of nuclear power? Not the American people, judging by where they choose to live.

A new map of data from the 2010 U.S. Census shows that the number of people living within the 10-mile emergency planning zones around nuclear power plants rose by 17 percent in the past decade, compared with an overall increase of less than 10 percent in the U.S. population.

If the circles on the map are widened to a 50-mile radius (the same evacuation area that U.S. nuclear officials recommended for Americans living near Japan's troubled Fukushima Dai-ichi reactors), they would cover one in three people in the U.S.

That's 116 million nuclear neighbors, up from 109 million a decade earlier, according to the analysis conducted for msnbc.com by Longcreative, a data analysis and design company.

The population within 10 miles of Pennsylvania's Three Mile Island reactor grew 11 percent. At Pilgrim, outside of Boston, the increase was 41 percent. Near San Onofre on the California fault lines, 50 percent.

Among the 100 most populous cities on the new census map, 26 have a nuclear plant within 50 miles: New York, Chicago, Philadelphia (3 different plants nearby), Phoenix, San Diego, Fort Worth, Charlotte (2 plants), Detroit, Baltimore, Boston (2 plants), Washington, Virginia Beach and Norfolk, Omaha, Raleigh and Durham, Miami, Cleveland, Minneapolis and St. Paul (2 plants), New Orleans, Pittsburgh, Toledo (2 plants), Newark, Baton Rouge, and Rochester, N.Y.

To get more information: The map below this story shows the populations within 5, 10, 20 and 50 miles of each nuclear power plant in the U.S. And a ranking of nuclear plants by population is at the bottom of the text, along with a data file for readers who want to do their own analysis.

'It makes a hissing noise'
Why would the population rise sharply near nuclear power plants, even in lower-growth states outside the Sun Belt? One reason could be normal population expansion, with previously unoccupied areas being filled in. Another reason: Nuclear reactors use water for cooling, from lakes, rivers or oceans, so the reactors are typically built on waterfront property. Is the sun rising or setting over the ocean any less beautiful if you can also see a cooling tower?

On a recent spring evening, two boys were shooting hoops in the driveway of a beachfront house on Millstone Beach in Waterford, a Connecticut town on Long Island Sound midway between New York City and Boston. The neat houses look out on glorious sunrises.

And if you turn your head to the right, the orange-and-white-striped smokestack of the Millstone Power Station reaches high above the white sand. The estimated population within 10 miles of Millstone grew 30 percent in the past decade, to 123,482. The population within 50 miles grew to 3 million, an increase of 10 percent, much faster than the state's general growth rate of 4.9 percent.


The father of one of the boys, Paul Van der Putten, 49, bought his home in 2003 for $378,000. It has increased roughly 75 percent in value since. He said he isn't worried about the nuclear plant, which is about six-tenths of a mile away, the length of 10 football fields. It has two operating nuclear reactors as well as a third reactor, mothballed but still a storehouse for nuclear fuel rods.

"It is what it is," he said. "It makes a hissing noise sometimes at night. That rattles the windows. They let us know when they have that scheduled. They let off the steam at night because no one wants to see the plume. It's just an industrial plant."

His family did receive a packet of potassium iodide pills in the mail a while back, because they live within the 10-mile zone.

Where are those pills?

"They're in the house somewhere. I'm really not sure where."

Most reactors have more neighbors
Journalist Andrew Long at Longcreative plotted the 65 nuclear power locations for msnbc.com on a computerized map of the 2000 and 2010 census data, calculating the population within different distances from each plant. (One of the leading nuclear power companies, General Electric, is a part owner of NBCUniversal, which co-owns msnbc.com through a joint venture with Microsoft.)

Other conclusions from the mapping of census data:

Within 5 miles of the nation's nuclear plants, there are an estimated 916,330 residents, up 15.0 percent from a decade earlier.
Within 10 miles, the population jumps to 4,079,007, up 16.9 percent.
Within 20 miles, there are 18,510,584 people, up 12.3 percent.
And within 50 miles, 116,223,077 people, up 6.5 percent.

No matter what size the circle, the pattern is consistent: Most nuclear plants have growing neighborhoods. Out of the 65 nuclear power plants in the U.S., 55 plants had more people living within 5 miles than a decade earlier; 54 plants had more people within 10 miles; and 56 plants had more people within 50 miles.

Growth even in slow-growth states

The reactors with the most neighbors within 50 miles:


Indian Point, near Buchanan, N.Y., 41 miles upriver from the center of New York City, with 17.2 million people within 50 miles.
San Onofre, near San Clemente, Calif., and 45 miles from San Diego, 8.5 million.
Limerick, near Limerick, Pa., and 28 miles from Philadelphia, 8.0 million.
Dresden, near Morris, Ill., and 43 miles from Chicago, 7.3 million.
Peach Bottom, near Delta, Pa., and 36 miles from Baltimore, 5.5 million.
Hope Creek and Salem, both near Hancocks Bridge, N.J., and 43 miles from Philadelphia, 5.5 million.

The nuclear plant with the fewest neighbors is Nebraska's Cooper Nuclear Station, in a rural area on the Missouri border, with only 164,000 people within 50 miles.

The view from the bay window
Next door to the Van der Putten family on Millstone Beach in Waterford, Vincent E. McCurdy has a living room full of boxes. His family bought the house in late January for $760,000, moving in just before the Japanese nuclear emergency. He and his wife have a daughter at home and a son away at college.

As they shopped for waterfront property, McCurdy said, the nuclear power plant figured into their thinking mostly in terms of whether it could be seen through the bay window. The family's view of the Sound is unobstructed, but if they stand on the patio, they can see the orange and white smokestack.

"The plant was definitely way down on the list of considerations."

After Fukushima, nuclear power has been more on their minds, he said, but it wouldn't change their decision to choose this location.

"It's been elevated in terms of thinking about it, but we don't really talk too much about it, because we view the overall risk to be low."

McCurdy, 54, is a senior pharmaceutical scientist for Pfizer Inc., and approaches the question with an analytical mind. While he acknowledged there are some risks, "The safety record of the nuclear industry has been pretty good overall." Millstone is not near a fault line. Long Island would buffer them against a tsunami. Hurricanes in this area are infrequent and relatively mild. And if something catastrophic were to happen, he said, a nuclear emergency can be slow to develop.


"You'd have some time to react, to get the family out of town."

Growth even outside the Sun Belt
Even nuclear plants in low-growth areas of the country showed increases in population. For example, the population in the 10-mile preparedness zone around the Salem and Hope Creek plants, near Hancocks Bridge, N.J., grew by 54 percent. The state population grew just under 5 percent in the same decade.

These plants showed the most population growth, judged in percentage terms, using a 10-mile radius: Palo Verde, near Wintersburg, Ariz.; Brunswick, near Southport, N.C.; Calvert Cliffs, near Lusby, Md.; McGuire, near Huntersville, N.C.; Turkey Point, near Homestead, Fla.; and Shearon Harris, near New Hill, N.C. Each of these showed increases of more than 60 percent in a decade, from relatively small base populations in 2000.


Any idea that most reactors are in unpopulated areas is not borne out by the data, not when a 50-mile circle is drawn. The median, or middle, nuclear plant has 1.4 million residents within 50 miles. Out of 65 plants, 42 exceed a million people within that 50-mile zone.

How close is close?
Before Fukushima, people within a mile or two already knew they lived close to nuclear power. At Millstone, the neighborhood and the plant have the same name. The back gate of the plant was usually unlocked until after the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks, Van der Putten said, and workers could walk from the plant to the neighborhood beach to have lunch.

Now, with all the talk of evacuation zones in Japan, Americans living 10 or 20 or 50 miles away may be calculating for the first time their distance from a nuclear reactor. In Japan, the evacuation zone has been expanded to 12 miles for everyone, and 12 to 19 miles for children, pregnant women and hospitalized patients.

Some critics of nuclear power have said that the standard emergency planning zone for the U.S. should be expanded to 20 or 50 miles. The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission has said it's sticking with 10 miles, but that the zone can always be expanded in an emergency.

In Waterford, more than 100 people packed a meeting Monday evening at Town Hall to hear from officials of Dominion, the Virginia energy company that owns the Millstone nuclear plant. Though a few anti-nuclear activists were louder, a larger group of nuclear supporters shouted them down.

Dominion executives stressed differences between their plant's design and the troubled reactors in Japan, and emphasized the multiple backup systems and emergency plans. (See this PDF file for a typical set of emergency instructions for a nuclear power plant.) Among other differences, Millstone has pressurized-water reactors, not the boiling-water reactors used in Fukushima and in many U.S. plants. Dominion's main current concern is not fear but taxation: A proposed state tax in Connecticut would hit nuclear power hardest of all. Dominion has threatened to close the plant if the $335 million tax increase is approved and it can't pass the cost on to customers.

Judging by interviews in the neighborhoods, and conversation at the Main Street Grille in the village of Niantic, which has the best view of the plant, residents are less worried by the nuclear emergency than by another emergency just up the road in Boston: Two weeks into the baseball season, the Red Sox are in last place.

More than half of Americans polled say nuclear power is safe
Gallup, the polling organization, has asked two main questions on nuclear power.


Americans are divided on the question of construction of more nuclear power plants. In late March, with Japan very much in the news, 46 percent of those surveyed told Gallup that nuclear power is necessary to help solve the nation's current energy problems, while 48 percent said the dangers of nuclear power are too great, even if it would help solve energy problems. That's very nearly the same split as 10 years earlier.

On the issue of safety, there is a clear pro-nuclear majority: In the same Gallup poll in late March, 58 percent said that nuclear power plants are safe, while only 36 percent said they are not safe, with 6 percent expressing no opinion.

Gallup's editor in chief, Frank Newport, summarized: "It may be months or years before the final impact of the Japanese disaster on American attitudes toward nuclear power can be assessed. In the short term, Americans are concerned about the dangers of a nuclear crisis in this country. But Gallup's most recent survey suggests that support for nuclear power may be more stable than some might think."


Ranking of U.S. nuclear plants by population within 50 miles
These are the 65 commercial nuclear power plants in the United States, showing the estimated populations within 10 and 50 miles, the changes in population between 2000 and 2010, and distances to selected larger cities within 50 miles. These 65 locations have 104 operating nuclear reactors.

The plants are ranked here by population within 50 miles. (click link above to see list)

 

04/16/11 9:01 PM

Carcinogens injected into gas wells, report says
Millions of gallons of dangerous chemicals used, three House Democrats say

 

04/18/11 12:40 PM

pragmatica posted:
Here's a really handy link that puts radiation dosages and exposures into perspective visually so it's easier to grasp:
[xkcd.com] --This chart is amazing!! votiVe--

and here is a different visual chart:
http://www.healthytimesblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/03/Radiation-Poisoning-Chart1.jpg

Just saw this release :
robots enter fukushima

"The robots reported radioactivity readings of up to 49 millisieverts per hour inside Unit 1 and up to 57 inside Unit 3, levels too high for workers to realistically enter.
Japanese authorities more than doubled the legal limit for nuclear workers since the crisis began to 250 millisieverts a year. Workers in the U.S. nuclear industry are allowed an upper limit of 50 millisieverts per year. Doctors say radiation sickness sets in at 1,000 millisieverts and includes nausea and vomiting"


I'm not proving anything here just noting how the governments approach the levels and where it's at today as far as they know. These handy charts (thanks Pragmatica!!) can help correllate.
So I think this means that if it's 57 per hour, that's 456 for a 8 hour day, supposing a worker was to stay there the whole time (but they are rotating them). 456 is like pretty bad. I wonder is there some kind of lead suit or something they could wear? (although that sounds pretty heavy)


http://www.heymister.net/storage/doc_brown-full.jpg?__SQUARESPACE_CACHEVERSION=1223612437567



Edited 5 time(s). Last edit at 04/18/2011 01:12PM by votiVe.

 

04/18/11 1:30 PM

Here is a story about how one of our nuclear plants performed during the huge storms that hit the US

Twister cuts power to Virginia nuclear plant

 

04/18/11 2:09 PM

votiVe posted:
So I think this means that if it's 57 per hour, that's 456 for a 8 hour day, supposing a worker was to stay there the whole time (but they are rotating them). 456 is like pretty bad. I wonder is there some kind of lead suit or something they could wear? (although that sounds pretty heavy)

I'd have to imagine that there would be pretty tight monitoring of their dose, so that they didn't get to 250.

At least some of the radioactive decay is high energy beta particles, so a lead suit wouldn't be a very good idea, due to creation of Bremsstrahlung radiation (I love that word. Love them germans, they have a single word for everything.)

 

04/19/11 8:25 AM

 

04/20/11 9:37 PM

OMS posted:
Carcinogens injected into gas wells, report says
Millions of gallons of dangerous chemicals used, three House Democrats say



Pennsylvania Fracking Spill: Natural Gas Well Blowout Spills Thousands Of Gallons Of Drilling Fluid


[www.huffingtonpost.com]

 

04/21/11 12:14 PM

Japan seals off no-go zone around nuclear plant

[news.yahoo.com]

FUTABA, Japan – Japan officially sealed off a wide area around a crippled nuclear power plant early Friday to stop tens of thousands of residents from sneaking back to the homes they quickly fled and are enduring a long, uncertain wait to return.

Fearing they might not see their homes and belongings again for at least six months, evacuees raced into the deserted towns Thursday before the ban took effect to grab whatever belongings they could cram into their cars.

"This is our last chance, but we aren't going to stay long. We are just getting what we need and getting out," said Kiyoshi Kitajima, an X-ray technician, who dashed to his hospital in Futaba, a town next-door to the plant, to collect equipment before the order took effect at midnight.

Nearly 80,000 people were hurriedly evacuated from a 12-mile (20-kilometer) zone around the Fukushima Dai-ichi plant on March 12, after an earthquake and a tsunami destroyed its power and cooling systems. The evacuation order had no teeth, and people began increasingly returning to check on the remains of their lives. Some had stayed all along.

With ongoing concerns about radiation exposure — as well as theft in the mainly deserted zone — the government said as of midnight Thursday the residents would be formally barred from entering the area.

Under a special nuclear emergency law, people who enter the zone will be subject to fines of up to 100,000 yen ($1,200) or possible detention of up to 30 days. Up to now, defiance of the evacuation order was not punishable by law, and the police manning the roadblocks had no authority to stop people from entering.

"We beg the understanding of residents. We really want residents not to enter the areas," Chief Cabinet Secretary Yukio Edano told reporters.

The order angered some residents who had fled nearly empty-handed when told to evacuate.

"I initially thought we would be able to return within a few days. So I brought nothing except a bank card," said Kazuko Suzuki, 49, of Futaba.

"I really want to go back. I want to check if our house is still there," said Suzuki, who fled with her teenage son and daughter. "My patience has run out. I just want to go home."

With the deadline approaching, evacuees ventured into the no-go zone, some in white protective suits and others in face masks and rain gear they hoped would protect against radiation. Most raced through the zone with car windows closed, their vehicles stuffed with clothing and valuables.

While the levels of radioactivity in the evacuated area have been quite low, the government wants to keep people away out of concerns that long-term exposure can be dangerous.

As of Thursday night, about 40 people stayed, many of them dairy farmers refusing to leave their cattle and elderly people who cannot move, the government said. Local officials were working to persuade them to leave, rather than punishing them, according to Kenji Kawasaki of Japan's Nuclear and Industrial Safety Agency.

About 3,400 cows, 31,000 pigs and 630,000 chickens were left in the zone, according to government figures, though most were assumed to have died by now.

The no-go order was not issued because of any particular change in plant conditions, which appear to have somewhat stabilized. Even under the best-case scenario, however, the plant's operator says it will take six to nine months to bring its reactors safely into a cold shutdown.

Equipment damage and glitches, high radiation inside the facility and powerful aftershocks have frequently stymied the work. The latest strong aftershock Thursday registered 6.1 magnitude, but Kyodo News Agency reported no apparent damage.

In a visit to the region, Prime Minister Naoto Kan said the government would do everything possible to speed up the timetable of shutting down the reactors. Kan also gave a pep talk to workers at a nuclear crisis management center in Fukushima.

Edano said one person per household would be allowed to return by bus for a maximum of two hours to collect necessary belongings and would be screened for radiation afterward.

Residents chafed at the one-person limit.

Details were still being worked out, and Edano said he hoped each family would be able to make the trip within the next month or two. When the situation stabilizes, families will be allowed further visits, he said.

No visits will be allowed in the two-mile (three-kilometer) area closest to the plant, said Hidehiko Nishiyama of NISA.

Katsunobu Sakurai, mayor of Minami Soma, where about half the 71,000 residents lived in areas that will now be off-limits, questioned the rationale for how the evacuation zone was decided.

"It feels like some outsider who doesn't know anything about our geography sat at a desk and drew these circles," Sakurai said. "The zones have zero scientific basis. Radiation doesn't travel in neat circles. Just putting up circles around the plant is unreasonable."

Fukushima's governor, who has been critical of the government's performance, said he urged Kan to ensure the disaster and related compensation issues are handled properly.

"I told the prime minister that I strongly hope that evacuees can return home as early as possible," said the governor, Yuhei Sato.

Meanwhile, new police data Thursday showed that at least 65 percent of the 11,108 identified victims from the earthquake and tsunami were aged 60 or older and almost all of them had drowned. Another 1,899 victims were of unknown age.

Adding those still missing, the twin disasters killed an estimated 27,500 people. The police agency said nearly 93 percent of the confirmed victims had drowned. Others perished in fires, were crushed to death or died from other causes.

The northeastern coast hardest hit by the disasters had a high concentration of elderly residents.

 

04/26/11 6:25 AM

Just found these on MSN this morning:


Slide show of 29 photos with text of Chernobyl then and now:

*An interesting observation to note, in the slide show, they say that the radiation from Chernobyl was 400X more than that of Hiroshima, and since the disaster, a 19-mile radius has been uninhabited/abandoned save for a handful of residents who chose to ignore warnings. With Fukushima being compared to being as bad as Chernobyl, one can only wonder if Japan is destined for the same after effects as Chernobyl.

[www.msnbc.msn.com]

Short article on Chernobyl's financially costly impact for cleanup and future projections to keep it under control:

[www.msnbc.msn.com]

 

04/27/11 8:18 AM

High Radiation Levels At Ohio Nuclear Plant Prompt Special Inspection


CLEVELAND -- High radiation levels recorded at a nuclear reactor in northeast Ohio have prompted a special inspection by the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

Workers at the Perry Nuclear Power Plant immediately evacuated it on April 22 when radiation levels rose while it was shutting down for a refueling outage, the commission said Tuesday. Plant officials don't believe workers were exposed to radiation levels "in excess of NRC limits," the commission said.

"The plant is in a safe condition and there has been no impact to workers at the plant or members of the public from this issue," the commission said in a statement.

Radiation levels rose while workers were removing a monitor that measures nuclear reactions during start-up, low-power operations and shutdown, the commission said.

The highest radiation exposure to any of the workers was 98 millirems, which is equivalent to two or three chest X-rays, a spokesman for the plant's owner said. The NRC's limit for radiation exposure in a year is 5,000 millirems, he said.

The commission, which began inspecting the plant on Monday, did not say how high the radiation levels were or how often such inspections occur.

The nuclear plant, owned by Akron-based FirstEnergy Corp., is about 35 miles northeast of Cleveland and began operating in 1987. FirstEnergy spokesman Todd Schneider said the four workers involved were contractors hired to assist with the plant refueling. He said the contractors were working in a containment building underneath the reactor at the time.

"The contractors did not use the proper method to remove this piece of equipment from underneath the reactor," Schneider said.

The plant refueling has continued on schedule, Schneider said.

"It shouldn't have happened, but the bottom line was it did not impact the safety or health of the contractors or the public," he said.

In March 2010, a small fire broke out in a water pump's lubrication system at the plant. The fire burned for several hours, and two members of the plant's fire brigade were taken to a hospital for heat stress.

The plant experienced numerous safety problems several years ago, causing the NRC to monitor its safety operations every three months in 2005, when the plant was forced to shut down briefly because of problems with pumps that circulate coolant through the reactor's core.


[www.huffingtonpost.com]



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 04/27/2011 08:19AM by PeedroPaula.

 

04/27/11 8:19 AM

OMG...I CAN'T READ WHAT YOU WROTE!

 
nin forums : Current Events & Politics : Any Current Defenders of Nu...
Page: <  1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 >
Sorry, only registered users may post in this forum. Please log in at the top of the page.
 
terms of use | privacy policy