Yes but the 20 mSv dose is being delivered ON-SITE, at the medical facility.
The point is that low-level radiation can be managed in a safe manner.
Waste facilities and on-site storage, likewise, can be done in a SAFE manner, just like the hospitals.
Again, like a weasel, "dpb" failed to quote the PERTINENT section of the Time article:
"The Sacramento plant produced only 40% as much electricity as expected, and its output cost twice as much as that bought on the conventional market. One result was a doubling of electricity rates. Said Bob Mulholland, who headed the campaign to close Rancho Seco: 'It's the first time the debate over a nuclear plant has focused on economics rather than safety.' "
In other words, as the article I referenced stated, RANCHO SECO was NOT ECONOMICALLY FEASIBLE.
Then you know enough to be able search the NRC licensee event reports and can verify the incidents at Rancho Seco were nothing out of the ordinary and mostly did have to do w/ operations. Having known and worked with them personally as well as all other nuclear utilities of the particular vendor's I have no difficulty in making comparisons between the various utilities and their relative levels of expertise and differences in operations.
Beyond that unless you have a specific question, I'll leave you to do some investigative reporting on your own.
And what does that have to do with the long-term storage of waste from a nuclear power plant?
...
I only responded to the portion on Rancho Seco shutdown not being a SMUD decision but a referendum (see other post follow-on).
The opinions stated were and are irrelevant to that.
--
I said nothing about the economics of the particular plant one way or the other, only that it wasn't a utility district choice to shut it down.
I'll only note the overall economics of nuclear can not be assessed simply from one poorly operated plant.
--
"dpb", you're the one making the assertions without providing supporting documentation.
The nuclear waste being stored long term, in many cases has a lower mSv than a dose from the medical CT scanner.
The quote from the article (link to which I provided) was:
Think: "R A N C H O S E C O" and check out:
Regarding the specific issue of "Rancho Seco":
"If the investor-owned utilities will not build new nuclear plants, the other possibilities are municipally-owned utilities and independent generators. The Sacramento Municipal Utility District, which shut down its Rancho Seco nuclear plant in 1989 due to high costs and chronically poor performance, is unlikely to want to go down that road again."
You have NO IDEA what you're talking about. LOL.
Radiation exposure from the nuclear fuel cycle is 0.0005 mSv per year (source: Bodansky, Springer) while naturally ocurring radon exposes people to 2.0 mSv per year. And one CT scan exposes one up to 20 mSv in just one session (not just the whole year).
Erma1ina I guess when you have no scientific basis for your argument, you resort to name-calling. You want to keep it scary sounding. Then back up the scare tactics with some kind of scientific facts.
That from someone ("scorpster") who talked about the radiation from an MRI. LOL
I typed MRI but I was -thinking- about CT, and then corrected it. It was a typo, nothing more exciting or revealing than that.
That error regarding the nature of an MRI reflected your overall lack of familiarity with the subject on which you were commenting.
Your subsequent attempts to "recover" from that error, reinforced the conclusion that you were pulling your assertions from somewhere other than a well-functioning and informed brain. I leave you to deduce the exact anatomical location to which I am referring. LOL
Erma1ina focus your energy on scientific content instead of more childish comments, it would be more productive.
Not sure if rate commission ? has anything to do with this. My supplier is a non-profit membership based coop and I try to keep consumption low. It gets obviously more expensive if I use more...
Good point, we better prepare a backup plan...
Space travel to go where?
At best it means that specific site has been partly decontaminated. It means that they have moved, not eliminated, the biggest part of the problem.
HomeOwnersHub website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.